Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been blocked about a dozen of times, including three times this year (once by myself), mainly for personal attacks. What they are doing on Wikipedia is not particularly useless but not very useful either: they find unsourced statements, mark them as unsourced, and after a while, without making any effort, remove them, often with a rude remarks [1]. Today, they got a complaint on a talk page from a user in good standing [2]. They responded like this. I noticed their response and asked them whether they realize that the comment is rude. I was told more or less to mind my own business. May be time has come for this user to have a longer Wikipedia break, a year or may be even longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential libel going on at Talk:Geely: [3]. clpo13_(talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a serious BLP problem, so I have reverted and hidden it. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, after reviewing this user's behavior in the time they have been on Wikipedia, I agree and support a one year ban. The user has had two three-month long blocks, and each time they have returned only to behave in the same manner. There is evidence of racial bias [4] [5], disparagement of positions the user disagrees with [6], name-calling [7] [8] [9], disparaging living subjects of articles [10], and at least one accusation that other editors are the President of Kazakhstan [11]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this user will cease their behavior even after that time. As it stands now though, such a large portion of this user's edits are objectionable that I do not think we have another choice. agtx 23:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support one year ban per above and after looking at the notes in their block log. Le Grand Bleu does not display the temperament customary to participating in a collaborative project. These aren't just small lapses in civility where can be like "could you please be more civil? Thank you". Le Grand Bleu has demonstrated a complete inability to interact with others in a collaborative manner without responding with just downright mean and abrasive comments and bashing those he disagrees with. That is entirely contravention to working with others and building an encyclopedia. I am absolutely convinced that nothing short of a one year site ban will convince this user to engage in the community in a proactive and not combative manner. If not, then the user can always be blocked again if they come back with the same behavior. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block: With those comments above, Should we indef block the user because he's totally incompentent with this user. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support one year block - Moriori has already applied this block, but I'm going to add my two cents nonetheless. After reviewing this user's recent contributions to Talk:Greely and other articles in relation to Greely, and looking through this user's past blocks and history, I agree that the community has exhausted all other options, and that a one year block is the logical next step regarding a sanction to impose in order to stop the problematic behavior and the disruption that has been made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block - This user has demonstrated no respect for the project, the administrators and the content. I'd go as far to say as the user is WP:NOTHERE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support 1 year block a one year block is the logical step, as Oshwah has said. I don't think an indef is necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef ban 96.237.18.247 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Le Grand Bleu

It seems everyone has a different take on this situtation; but most can agree that he needs a community site ban for at least a full year. I'm not even going to go into detail about this; his block log, contributions, and the rest of this section prove anything I ever could. I do have one thing I noticed that most people don't, though: he uses being a "new user" (Yeah, that tag has been up since June 2014 and hasn't learned anything) as an excuse for all of the aforementioned BS. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

About the time you were writing that I was blocking User:Le Grand Bleu -- for one year. Moriori (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That was actually the reason I wrote this. Although I can understand if you misunderstand; I think a site ban is deserved because he has kept up with this shit for around 26 months. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, massive kudos to User:Clpo13 for fixing up the Geely article a bit by adding sources, reverting him, and tagging it. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked him not because of the OP, but because a subsequent comment from another editor alerted me to something else. When notifying User:Le Grand Bleu that I had blocked him, I said it was for his "BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history." He can appeal the block if he wants to. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rekt! 96.237.22.40 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets not dance around the grave here and kick Le Grand Bleu while he's down :-(. As much as this user has probably caused frustration and perhaps anger, we need to be respectful and take Le Grand Bleu's feelings into account. Blocking someone for a year is not a decision that comes lightly, nor is it something should be done without serious care. If I were in Le Grand Bleu's shoes, I'd feel quite saddened, beaten, and defeated for being blocked for a full year. Making comments like this only makes things worse; we don't want to discourage this user from coming back (assuming that a one-year block is the consensus that is reached here) - we should have the attitude that we want him back! But we also want him to take time and learn from this and contribute positively and according to policy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry by JayJasper

Based on suspicious accounts editing at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 I performed a CheckUser and came across a number of accounts which were being operated across a number of different IP addresses and useragents. CheckUser and a behavioural investigation indicated that User:JayJasper, a user with around 47000 edits, had been operating these accounts. After performing my own investigation I asked User:Bbb23 to do an independent check, and his results confirmed my own. The following accounts are CheckUser  Confirmed as being used by JayJasper (talk · contribs):

• BrightonC (talk · contribs)
• Cojovo (talk · contribs)
• CPguy (talk · contribs)
• Ddcm8991 (talk · contribs)

• Dwc89 (talk · contribs)
• Earlgrey T (talk · contribs)
• Feel da J (talk · contribs)
• Hm838 (talk · contribs)

• Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs)
• Newbreeder (talk · contribs)
• NextUSprez (talk · contribs)

• Rollins83 (talk · contribs)
• Romandave (talk · contribs)
• The Anti-Censor (talk · contribs)

These accounts have edited topics related to contemporary US politics, particularly regarding the US election, some of them over a number of years (the oldest account was created more than 6 years ago). The deceitfulness and avoidance of scrutiny from JayJasper is highly disruptive and contrary to the nature of the project. Some of the accounts listed below were used as vandalism only accounts and therefore used with the intention of disrupting the project, other have been used for good-hand/bad-hand editing. It is extremely likely, given that the sock puppetry from JayJasper has occurred over a number of years, that there are a large number of accounts which have not been used recently and so were not detected by Bbb23's and my investigation.

As a brief clarification, I am acting here as a CheckUser not as an arbitrator and I haven't discussed this matter with the Arbitration Committee.

Due to the long-term and insidious use of other accounts I have blocked JayJasper indefinitely. I've decided to make this a normal administrative block (as opposed to a checkuser block) so if the community decides here to modify it an admin wouldn't need to go through the CheckUser team.

On behalf of Bbb23 and I, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Predident [sic] Trump is going to build a wall to keep sockpuppets like this out. EEng 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll add waterboarding then I'm on board. EEng 06:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• JayJasper is a great editor. I find these allegations very hard to believe. Nevertheless, even if they are true, the indefinite block should be decreased so that Jay can continue making great edits as the US election draws closer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hell, no. This is inexcusable behavior, giving the finger to the entire community behind its back for years. No number of "great edits" can counterweigh this. Goodbye forever, JJ, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. EEng 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See the reference to good hand/bad hand above. In cases like these there will always be a 'good editor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's seriously some heavy-duty gaming going on. If there's a site ban proposed, I support it fully. Also, great work investigating and confirming this by the CU's. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with all 3 above me (RickinBaltimore, Only in death, EEng). There's no excuse for this sort of extreme sockpuppetry, and I'd be reluctant to let the editor return to editing after just a year away and definitely not within the next month and a bit. I don't recognise JayJasper or any of the socks by name so this has nothing to do with that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If he still wants to edit three years from now, he can make a case then. Not one month, not one year. EEng 19:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See [12]. User:Cojovo says he is the real master and that JayJasper and some of the other accounts are innocent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As with most socks, his statement lacks any kind of credibility. For example, he lists all of his socks. Yet, some of those accounts were created before he was, meaning he couldn't be the master. Moreover, assuming the comments are actually coming from JayJasper (the person), it's a great strategy. Acknowledge a bunch of accounts so you look honest but with the goal of being unblocked to continue editing (and socking). Cojovo noted only one non-stale account, I.C. Rivers (talk · contribs · count), which I've blocked as  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also blocked the other accounts that Cojovo admitted to as suspected socks, although a couple of them didn't exist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the analysis was wrong? In other words, how clear cut is this? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As open-and-shut as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an editor who edits as frequently as JayJasper would suddenly stop editing without so much as a complaint on his talk page if he didn't know the jig was up. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cojovo has left more comments. See [13]. Based on the IP data available is this a plausible explanation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that as of 22:14, September 27, 2016‎ User:JayJasper has requested review of the block. While User:Callanecc decided not to mark the block as a checkuser block to allow the community to consider it here, the basis for the unblock request is a challenge to the checkuser data, which would be hard, or impossible for us to properly review here due to the confidentiality of checkuser information. Review of the determination that socking occurred should be left to the Checkusers, and eventually Arbcom. Given the substantial contributions of JayJasper, I hope such review occurs promptly. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find Jay's explanation convincing at all, but I've flagged it for another CheckUser to take a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He's actually been here a lot longer than you. I think he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There still isn't any doubt for me, and I imagine Bbb23 still agrees. That said, there's nothing stopping the community giving unblocking him or giving him the standard offer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A few additional comments. I would have CheckUser-blocked JayJasper. The technical evidence was matched and cross-matched many times over. The behavioral evidence was strong, and not just in the political topic area but in other subject areas that JayJasper has an interest in. I would not unblock JayJasper after any period of time, six months or longer, without a complete acknowledgment of his socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per the unblock request, and the CU request by Callanecc, I ran some checks. The technical evidence of sockpuppetry is unequivocal. In particular, the edits from one apparently static IP address leave no doubt whatsoever that JasperJay has been engaging in the behavior that Callanecc and Bbb23 described above. In recent weeks, JasperJay has edited from this IP address within minutes of The Anti-Censor, Feel da J, NextUSprez, and Ddcm8991. Evidence from other ranges is also unambiguous. I would also recommend converting this to a checkuser block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Given we've now got confirmation from 3 CheckUsers that JayJasper has been extensively socking, I guess the only question is: Is the community sufficiently satisfied that the block should be converted to a CU block? Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is needed, no standard offer sadly though. I understand some editors here are in disbelief, it reminds me a bit of Henry Plummer in this case as well the cat was let out of the bag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane and Knowledgekid87: Another option might be that the community converts this to a site ban with a way back as has been proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, this would increase the time needed to come back. I want this to be a learnable offense though, if the punishment is too severe (multiple years) then what is the point in having a time limit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• He just admitted to the sockpuppetry on his talk page. However, he says that Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs) and BrightonC (talk · contribs) are other people that he knows.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just looking at behavioral evidence, I don't find that assertion believable. I have a feeling the checkusers will agree based on technical data. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's remotely possible for Miss Cherry Redd but I doubt it, I very very strongly doubt BrightonC. The behavioural evidence makes it very unlikely and the technical evidence supports that conclusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer or Clean start

Statement from JayJasper. Copied by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, here I am with my hands up acknowledging - with great remorse and regret - that the sockpupetting allegations against me are indeed true. I first want to offer my deepest apologies to the entire community for these grievous actions, which are entirely indefensible and contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community of which I have been privileged to have been a part of for nearly a full decade. I apologize also for my desperately lame attempts to initially deny these allegations in the face of crystal-clear evidence. There are no excuses or any justification whatsoever for these actions, for which I take full and complete responsibility for. I perfectly understand if any of the editors who I have frequently interacted with over are angry and/or deeply disappointed with my actions. I would certainly have similar feelings if I were in their position. If I can be given the opportunity to earn back the community's trust and goodwill, you can take it to the bank that I will work diligently and enthusiastically to do so. Although my behavior-in-question could never be explained away, and that there are zero - maybe even negative - legitmate reasons that could be given for it, I would nevertheless like to give a bit of insight as to how it came about. Around 7 years ago, I for some reason felt a need to "experiment" by editing in other personas. I found that it seemed to stimulate creativity and and a sense of "freedom" to edit from the vantagepoint of "someone else". Crazy, huh? Despite having been a Wikipedian long enough at that point to know better, I naively thought it would be just a short-term thing that wouldn't do any harm. Well, it just seemed to get easier and easier to do, and I guess it became somewhat (for lack of a better word) addictive. I started rationalizing to myself that editing through the multiple accounts was actually beneficial to Wikipedia because doing so actually enhanced my editing skills. I now know what a load of malarky that was, and that there are no justifications for stealth sockpuppeting and that single-editor focused editing is truly what works best. I can't tell you how badly I wish I had the good sense back then to "experiment" in a manner compliant with WP:SOCK#LEGIT, with full transparency. Alas, I did not, and...here I am. The great irony to all of this is that, just a few weeks before being "caught", the reality of just how absurdly out-control the sock accounts had become was beginning - in a big way - to set in. I then made myself a resolution that within a period of six months I would have all the socks "phased out" once and for all (I had reasoned that if I dropped them all "cold turkey" it might become obvious and look suspicious that these multiple editors all stopped at about the same time. Then, just two or three weeks later - boom! Like I said, irony.  I tell you this not to garner any sympathy or persuade you to in any way let me "off the hook". I just want give some perspective, and let you know that while that while my judgement in this whole matter was obviously piss-poor, my intentions and motivations were never in any way of ill will, nor intended to disrespect or spite the WP community. I know that does not make it right, or even more tolerable. I fully acknowledge the harm my thoughtless actions have done, and I regret it deeply. Nevertheless, I want everyone to know that I truly do respect the community despite having engaged in actions that do not comport with that sentiment. Oh, about those handful of good sock/bad sock edits, including the one that led to the "reveal": They came about as a result of a prankish work associate who thought it would be a real hoot to give me some vandalism to chase after while I was editing from an office computer, and he was logged in on another (which has a different IP address from the one I was using, but I had made edits from both, so...). Now, I know this may sound like "a likely story" and that I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, but that is in no way the case. Although I didn't initiate these edits, I knew what was taking place and could have - and should have - made a staunch effort to prevent it from happening, but failed to do so. I therefore have complicity in, and bear full responsibility for, them. I just want it to be known that this sort of thing is not something I would initiate or do "for jollies" at Wikipedia's expense. Nor is it something I would ever allow to happen again, should I have the good fortune of being granted a second chance of being an active member of the Wikipedia community again. I would also like to note that I never personally edited under the usernames "Miss Cherry Redd" or "BrightonC". They are (well, were) the legitimate accounts of two people I know personally who started edited WP with my encouragement. Both edited from computers that were shared with me at home or work. Among the many regrets I have over this whole episode is they have lost their accounts as a result of my utter stupidity. If and when I am granted a second chance by the community, I will remember to utilize Template:User shared IP address on any and all applicable accounts. Having acknowledged my transgressions, I steadfastly vow to learn from, and never repeat, them. Having done so, I humbly and respectfully ask the community to extend to me the WP standard offer, or some variation of it. Knowing that some of you understandably have misgivings about doing so, let it be known that I am open to having editing privileges under probationary measures of some kind. Such measures would be prudent and more than fair. I am also open to any suggestions and feedback you may have concerning actions I might take to better my chances of having editing privileges restored. Given the opportunity to make a WP:Clean start, I could begin anew with a new account that is unstained by the legacy of sockpuppetry that brought about this whole unfortunate episode, but that continues the positive legacy of the JayJasper account. Please note that this positive legacy encompasses nearly a decade of constructive work that has benefitted the project: creating, improving, and cleaning up articles; constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects; adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. While I know that my many positive contributions do not erase or excuse the harm done by my despicably poor choices in editing methods, I would like to believe that a decade of positive, productive contributions that have benefitted the readers of Wikipedia (and aren't they who WP exists for, and to whom the project has it first and foremost responsibility?) must count for something, and carry heavy weight at that. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your careful considerationm--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will at least honor Jay's request for a community decision regarding a standard offer, or clean start after x time. Given how many socks though I do not feel that an "im sorry" is enough as trust is like at 0 for this editor. So I ask the community to state your input here on the matter... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll repeat: this is about the worst thing an editor can do. I say a five-year absence at the minimum, but I'll settle for three. I'm not kidding. EEng 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. The long statement now inserted above doesn't change my opinion. Actions have consequences.
• Just for the record I think that 6-8 months or one year at least is in order, if we are talking about multiple years it might as well be a site ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a site ban, and the standard offer possibly extended plus 2 or so months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I find the above statement by JayJasper disingenuous in the context of this unblock request made a mere three days ago where they try and argue that they have not been socking. Instead this shows to me a calculated and willful attempt to further deceive the community and operate outside our policies and guidelines. There are literally thousands of edits between the accounts and the sophistication to run such a operation took time and planning. It will take the community possibly weeks or months to even assess how much damage through forced influence and consensus these accounts have had on a wide array of topics. I think a standard offer could be applied with heavy restrictions on editing topics relating to US politics as well as endorsing this as a CU block. Mkdw^talk 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• To paraphrase "Well dang it, you caught me finally. Good job there, but I wasn't really all that bad. Honest!" Yes, you were, JayJasper. Deception after deception, even after the initial block. Your actions after that eroded more faith and trust than your socking before. At LEAST a year and even then it's not with a new account. I would not support a clean start for someone with such dirty hands. Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would support the standard offer. Realistically, an editor capable of running socks undetected for so long, with non-fringe interests, will be able to create a new account in 6-12 months and blend back into the community, regardless of whether we extend the standard offer or not. I feel it would serve the community better to have the transparency that will occur through the standard offer. This is not intended to diminish the severity of the breach of trust that occurred, but to take a pragmatic approach moving forward, providing a path to return to editing that doesn't involve violating more rules and policies. Monty₈₄₅ 04:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• No sockmaster has ever been, can ever be, granted the privilege of a clean start. It's even stated in the first section of the WP:CLEANSTART policy, Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. That they have come clean counts in their favour. Furthermore, in the very first paragraph of the policy page, he new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. That JayJasper wants a clean start after some period is a fundamental misunderstanding of that policy. 612 month ban not appealable for that duration, then standard offer after that. Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I had been mulling this over and was writing up a revision to my original proposal of a 6 month ban but forgot to save the edit. I agree with Ad Orientem that a 6 month ban is really not enough for the level of socking seen here. Hence I've also revised my support for a 12 month ban with no appeal instead of 6. Blackmane (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a siteban with the option to ask for the standard offer after 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer for the sole reason that it's the standard offer. It's not a gift to be given out or taken away, it's an acknowledgement that people can acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them, and when they do it makes us better as a community. I don't believe even one slightest bit that JayJasper has really acknowledged the damage they've done, that their deliberate and ongoing violation of trust is the biggest of deals in a community built on consensus and collaboration. It's evident in the number of editors in the section above leaping to their defense, saying it can't possibly be true, that there must be some mistake. How long will it take JayJasper to really recognize the damage that their actions have done to that trust? I don't see it in this statement here at all. And they should definitely not have a clean start account, that's not learning from your mistakes, that's hiding them, and they've hidden this long enough. I support six months, because that's the standard offer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban, no clean start, standard offer after 6 months. Keri (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think that when or if this user can come back that their "pending changes reviewer" status should be revoked: [14]. Based on the severity of the socking I do not think that this user should be trusted with anything upon return. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block w/ Possibility of Standard Offer but only after twelve months, not six. The offense is too egregious for a six month break. And to be clear, if there is any repetition I will support a CBAN. Oppose clean start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block & Standard offer but oppose a clean start. Also Support revocation of Pending Changes Reviewer status. Mainly due to the length and severity of the socking, and the blatant attempt at deceiving the community. I feel as though if he gets a clean start we will be right back here with the same issues. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block for 12 months, then the standard offer after that time. JayJasper realized what he did was wrong, which is good, however the deed was still done. A 12 month block is needed for the actions taken, after which time I agree with the standard offer. In that same regard, if there is ANY sign he socked at all during this 12 months or after, then I support a full siteban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer. JayJasper has been a net-benefit to the encyclopedia for the past 10 years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor spamming Talk pages with invitations to join an "Association"

Editor TheStrayDog has begun posting invitations, apparently randomly, on the Talk pages of other editors to become members of the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia (AWWDCCW)", an organization which TheStrayDog has apparently just created. This seems to me like a misuse of WMF facilities for activities not directly related to the project, but that may just be me. Posting here for consideration and discussion by other editors and admins. General Ization ^Talk 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Is he just pinging randos, or is there some rhyme or reason to the people he's pinging? If it's the latter, I don't see why he can't keep doing it. Also, have you talked to him enough to know if it's the former or latter, @General Ization:? I think you may have been too quick to take this to ANI. pbp 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: hello dear! I didn't know about that rule . I will stop it right now also so sorry for this fault .thanks for mentioning me. best wishes. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't talked with him or her about it; some of us are actually supposed to be working during the working day. It may be perfectly fine; I simply thought some other eyes should take a look at this before he or she got too far into the effort. General Ization ^Talk 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Hello again! I was wonder to ask if it's illegal to ask users to join ? asking is not illegal I thought? but if you talking about a massive invitation I think may be ! can you tell me more or send me the exact rule? tell me more.The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Being unsure if your activity is appropriate, I brought the question here for discussion. I will point out that WP:TALK contains these statements of policy: "[T]he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Perhaps you could explain how you feel your messages and/or the association you have created will improve the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a point of information, the Talk page messages are being posted using a newly created template at Template:Join AWWDCCW. General Ization ^Talk 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes. not a social network but I didn't say happy birthday to users or didn't poke them or invite them to a cafe! I know you are an American an I am an Iranian our politics are not on the right way but we are people and must be human and don't judge as a politician. It seems you are republican and hates Iranians no? want to make a frame-up against me to stop my peaceful stuff . but i don't think so . so amuse as a good faith and don't have any complaint against you [kidding]. happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, I am neither a Republican (not that that is at all relevant or any of your business) nor hate Iranians, and I suspect that you are not improving your standing here by making such statements, even in jest. Could you respond to my suggestion above? General Ization ^Talk 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant a small-r republican. EEng 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the candidates takes the podium – EEng

Well, yes, I suppose I would be resistant to the return of a monarchy in the United States. Will be watching tonight's debate with keen interest. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What the hell does him being American and you being Iranian have to do with anything? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is that you 74? Its great to see you back! I have no idea what this conversation is about but I thought I would just say hi! I remember you fondly for helping me many moons ago when I just started in this err place. Simon.Irondome (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think there's something to look at here. Not suggesting that TheStrayDog is not here or either WP:NOTNOTHERE; but a couple of things are slightly bothersome. The user was blocked by Someguy1221, for many reasons (disruptive editing, including edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags); ten days later, they suggest it was an 'unintentional' block. A read of the archives shows they have been warned of this behaviour time and time again; and as for the political remarks above, a glance at a previous user page] suggests they are not versed in our guidelines in polemical pages. This shows they have been previously advised as to webhost policy, which is under discussion currently. Replies such as this and this do not inspire confidence that they are actually listening to what other editors are saying; combined with a TP still full of warnings, little enough seems to be changing to suggest that even if there is no intentional disruption, WP:CIR might apply. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I second this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So dear fellows! I'm here right now and want to say Peace and do not mess with each other for some typical reasons. We are all human, who after this election that which seems will make trump as president of US (because Hillary got a cold), we all going to judgment day and then maybe heaven (I mean after WWIII). get ready for heaven (or hell if you are devil as much as that T-Guy) [laughing and waiting for that debate on BBC Persian]. The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheStrayDog; I guess I could probably redux my suggestion to CIR then. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, allow me to expand my request for consideration by pointing out that the editor seems thus far to be either unwilling or unable to explain how this activity benefits the project. General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So I wanna say I stopped it for a long time as @General Ization: said it that can be illegal. close the discussion please . if you want. thanks anyway. and be on Peace. bye.The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Please expand further on that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Expand? ok, i said that i didn't know that rule which may ban me to invite people to an association. also there is a lot of templates that work like that and i thought it's not illegal. if it's not legal, ok, i stopped for a long time ago and don't want to bother people here. bye The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This invitation you posted not even a half an hour ago doesn't support your claim that you have stopped. General Ization ^Talk 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) On looking at the page they are linking people to, I think a bigger problem is not the spamming ("random" is essentially impossible to prove, and AGF prevents us from forcing the criterion out of him) but the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude assumed on the page. The sentence "This association is for those who believe that Wikipedia should [...] not [be] a place just for promote a race, religion, language, country, belief and/or an ethnicity" very clearly indicates that the author believes there is a substantial number of people on the project who think Wikipedia should be a place to promote this, that and the other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I am not sure if someone who thinks this way about the project and its members should be editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Realized immediately after clicking "save changes": Note that I am not saying there aren't a lot of editors who probably do think Wikipedia is for promoting a religion. There certainly are, and probably those who hold to the other jingoistic, nativist, racist views listed, too. But I am not trying to create an "association" for people on "my side" to fight back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you just look at the totality of his edits since coming off his block, there's not much to inspire confidence. He's come down from his overaggressive attitude and edit warring, sure, but mostly it's just adding redundant information to articles, adding unsourced content to articles, making unsourced assertions on talk pages, and engaging in one really trivial content dispute. The almost complete lack of edit summaries is unhelpful, and the condescending way he refers to other editors "my dear" is just annoying. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the overall issues, and I do not mean to imply a position one way or the other. But about the "my dear" thing, I know several Iranian Americans, and the use of the phrase is very common among them. It kinda loses something in translation, but I'd be inclined to AGF about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Of course it's probably a Farsiism and Iranian editors with less-than-native command of English will make such mistakes, and of course we should assume good faith the first time, but now that he has been asked to stop, has claimed he understands what he is doing wrong, and has then continued to do so anyway, we should begin to ask whether this is the kind of good-faith mistake we can continue to allow. English Wikipedia editors need to be able to communicate with each other in English, and editors with low levels of English should be at least capable of understanding when they are told that their English is in error and comes across as arrogant to most native speakers. TheStrayDog claimed below that he understood, but somehow has continued to do so nevertheless. If he kept to himself and only made minor edits, and behaved more humbly when criticized, then maybe this would be acceptable, but aggressively defending his actions with multiple explanation marks and insulting his critics ("you are wasting your time") is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I hope that I already made clear, I was commenting only about the phrase (because it had just been brought up as "condescending" and "just annoying"), that's all. I'm not implying anything else about this situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I accepted my faults above, in my first respond and an admin closed the discussion for once. Also I have stopped for more than a day. please close the discussion , as you wish. it will be nice of you . thanks anyway. The Stray Dog Talk Page 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning indef-block. Clearly he hasn't learned anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hijiri, That question was real and it's a misunderstanding. i do not try to mess with you . I try to be good with you and have a good humor. but you are trying to sentence me. im talking about peace and i accepted my faults and trying to be good but whats wrong with you ??? seeking a way for blocking me???. you ar seeking even from my further actions to find something for convicting and bollocking me??!!! you are an editor, you are wasting your time for this simple situation. im so sorry for us. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I am not "seeking a way" to get you blocked. I am beginning to think more and more that your being blocked might be the best way for the community to deal with a problem it is having. The problem is your constantly annoying other editors by trying to engage them in conversation about topics that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. You have said several times that you understand what you did wrong, but at the same time as claiming to understand you keep doing the same things. By accusing me of "seeking" to block you, you are continuing in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I called you out for above. And since being called out for use of "dear" you have called me thus no less than twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I don't call you dear anymore, pay attention that admins may judge your behaviors and your claims here, im so here and i had/have significant edits here and will have too. you are wasting your time, and its you which are not here to build an encyclopedia you are here to ban/block active users for some special reasons. for example likely you may oppose to our Association or me who am an inclusinist(maybe you're a deletionist) . also you have blocked too and you are not eligible to say users are here or not. this is an encyclopedia and we don't want to waste our time with sentencing other users for saying Dear and having Good Humor. i called you dear and you are convicting me for just calling you dear ? really ?? and then you are claiming im not here??. look at your behavior then judge who is not here, me and you?.The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour ("you may oppose to our Association"), insulting other users, impugning their good faith, proclaiming them to be WP:NOTHERE without any evidence, threatening them with needless boomerangs solely for reading a thread on ANI and responding to it, WP:IDHT behaviour (being called out here for calling people "dear", claiming you understand what you did wrong, continuing to call people "dear", being called out again, and then aggressively defending oneself as having "good humour") and trawling through their edit histories and block logs to find "dirt" to throw in their faces ... TheStrayDog, you're really not making yourself look any better with these edits, and are making me believe more and more strongly that the best solution is for you to leave the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's looking more and more like the best option. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: close the discussion please . as you closed first time once after my acceptance of my fault . for third time I want to say to assure you I accepted and understood my fault (adding that template) and I stopped it at the time and don't want to waste other users' time and make problem here . I'm calling peace and I'm here to build and encyclopedia. also i will fix my errors as soon as possible . If i didn't please note me at my talk page . thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We're past the point where it'd be right for me to do that. @Hijirl88: I think indef block is overly excessive. pbp 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that when I say "indef" I don't mean "permanent". Blocks are preventative, and blocking someone who was annoying other users until this was brought to ANI, and then claimed they understood what was wrong and kept doing it anyway, and then someone else said they should be blocked, and then they said they understood what was wrong and would stop and kept doing it anyway is actually a pretty reasonable move. If they indicate that they genuinely understand what they were doing wrong and will do their utmost to change, they can be unblocked. "overly excessive" implies some kind of blocking-as-punishment ideology under which the "punishment" should fit the "crime". But this is just a user making other users' editing experience less enjoyable apparently through some kind of competence problem; no "crime" and no "punishment". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note that TheStrayDog has essentially only been editing English Wikipedia for four months (they made 29 edits before that, all of them minor). Since then, they have been blocked once for 48 hours for "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags", and in that time appealed their block twice, both times being rejected because their appeal did not indicate that they understood why they had been blocked; then, after the second appeal was rejected, they claimed that the block had been "punishment". Is this user really understanding why their edits are inappropriate? Are they likely to listen to what others are telling them if they are not blocked? Will they even listen to what others are telling them if they are blocked? Those article edits that aren't some form of POV-pushing or edit-warring all appear to be minor, gnomish maintenance edits -- are these edits really worth the drain on the community's energy this user is causing? (Normally I don't trawl through other editors' edit histories and block logs, but when they do this to me for no apparent reason, I feel it's fair game.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment With every post, stray digs his hole deeper and deeper. I'd also like to point out his terrible grammar and remind everyone of WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when have anonymous accounts had any status when it comes to criticizing the grammar or hole digging abilities of others? Nothing specific regarding infringement of Wikipedia rules has been presented. There are lots of silly templates out there, with editors claiming to belong to this and that group (sometimes for valid content editing, sometimes just to be humorous). TheStrayDog has said he will not be posting the messages anymore, so that should be the end of it. TheStrayDog - I think you should not post anything more in this thread; you have said enough to explain your case and anything more risks manipulation by others. Oh, and maybe also stop posting welcome messages on new editors' talk pages - the people who do that sort of thing are generally wanabe administrators who think they can attain that position in 3 months (alas, in the past some actually did) by ticking the right boxes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: TheStrayDog is clearly engaged in battleground behaviour and doesn't seem interested in being civil. They also have repeatedly claimed they have read and understood the complaints the rest of us are making, and then continued engaging in the same behaviour -- either they are lying, or they are incapable of working with others constructively. All of this unambiguous violation of policy, on top of behaving like a dick to me with the trawling through my edit history in an attempt to dig up dirt on me -- the last time I was blocked that wasn't based on a technicality that was quickly overruled when I indicated that I understood what I had done wrong was a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you think 74.70.146.1 is engaged in some kind of sockpuppetry, block-evasion, or otherwise problematic behaviour, the burden is on you to demonstrate it; otherwise, he/she is just one more editor expressing their opinion here. (Note that I am not prejudiced against the idea that 74.70.146.1 is in fact engaged in some kind of content dispute with TheStrayDog and is acting accordingly in an attempt to force the latter off the project; I am just not prejudiced in favour of such an idea either. What I am prejudiced against is the idea that the opinion of someone who doesn't have an account or isn't logged into it at the moment is less valuable than that of someone who registered an account in 2013 or 2014. As far as I am concerned, both you and TSD are definitely newbies when compared to me, while I have no idea how long 74.70.146.1 has been editing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On and off since 2006, just never bothered to create an account. And no, I have no beef with stray. I was just reading ANI for lulz, came across this posting and looked more into it. I care about the project and think stray is bad for it; simple as that. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Observation from an admin - There does seem to credibility (and consensus) that WP:CIR is in play, and the diffs seem to support this conclusion, as does a random sampling of diffs and the "association" itself. I see a lot of other odd editing that again supports the consensus here. [15], [16] seem to be a waste of time for the community, and that is what is at stake, the wasting of the communities time. To be clear: unsolicited advertising is disruptive, evidenced by the fact that we are here, and previous experience. I almost closed with an indef block, but I'm open to hear why I shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any scope for mentoring Dennis Brown Dennis? What do the others think? It depends just how far gone the situation is. Still a net plus, salvagable or a drain? Any evidence that the user has positively helped the project? Irondome (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I will leave that for the community to decide, I can't really vote and close, and no other admin has come into the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors that go around placing unsolicited warnings are much more disruptive, imo, than the occasional unsolicited spam. When is something going to be done about them? With TheStrayDog and his welcome messages. and "association", and creation of pointless categories and so on, I just see someone probably reading and acting on a chapter in the unwritten "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months of editing" guidebook. Maybe the incompetence is in that editor's execution of its advice. Taking the unabashed box ticking route to administratorship (aka "The Wikicology Way"), the margin between complete success and complete failure, becoming an administrator or being indefinitely blocked during the process of trying, seems wafer thin for the 6 month express method. Steady-as-you-go box ticking, however, has much better results. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but you seem to be the only one making the (unsupported) claim that he is attempting to fast track to adminship, which only relates to his motives, not his actions. CIR is at its roots, consistent disruption done in good faith because the person lacks the ability to understand what they are doing wrong. That seems to be the main theme and it IS supported by diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They didn't get rid of that 'unintentional block' userbox either. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any disruption seems very storm-in-a-teacup stuff - assorted "odd edits" (as you called them), barely registering as disruption at all, the occasional cultural misunderstanding, like calling someone "my dear" (oh the horror!). For that, indefinitely blocked? Really? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are offering to mentor him then? It isn't enough to complain about the solution, you have to have a better solution of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

CyberBrinda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am very likely to need some help here as I have no idea yet what I am doing especially concerning listing "diff's". I will look into this if actually needed.

I had participated in some AFD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewati Chetri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankhuri Gidwani and received notices of thanks from CyberBrinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had made some edits, to Rewati Chetri that were maintenance (marking dead links, removing a redundant reference to the same source with the same content, and I also removed the external link to a pageant that I feel was just pageant advertising, since there was no mention of the subject. All these were done with an edit summary and I posted what I had done on the talk page.

The edits were removed so I posted more comments on the talk page and looked around. I placed an external link tag on the article to deal with it later, with an edit summary and the reasoning on the talk page. I sent a message to CyberBrinda about the incremental mobile edits to the page, with no edit summary. I received a notice of thanks from the editor. Looking into it more I found that the editor had made other like edits such as Miss Earth India, and in fact is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with hundreds of such edits. CyberBrinda had been warned by at least one user, and was blocked twice for disruptive editing. I added a message on the talk page concerning the things I found. I may not have done things exactly right (or right at all) but think I have been civil and trying to be informative about the issues.

The external link tag that I placed was removed and at least had an edit summary "(The External links does not violate any copyrights...)" but no discussion, in fact no discussion on anything just the thanks and edit reverts.

I am posting this discussion on the user talk page and that may get some response. I did not look to see if the blocks were related and did not know protocol as to if I should have made inquiries to the blocking admin or here since I have not done this before. I was going to send another message, and was looking at the templates, but the external link tag was removed without discussion so I know that any further discussion to the user would be a waste of my time. I feel some intervention is required as I do not know how to follow the hundreds of rapid fire masked edits (no edit summaries), that includes what looks to be 87 edits on one day on the same article, to see what is going on, but 367 edits to 5 articles (842 total edits to just a few articles), in such a short time by a somewhat new editor, causes me to wonder. Add to this the disregard of policies and guidelines, in light of receiving messages, means to me there is a problem. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I closed one of the AfDs and at that time I came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova that wasn't CU acted on because it was stale. I've blocked quite a few socks in the different sockfarms around these shows and this definitely feels like one of them. I'm not familiar enough yet to identify which one it is, but I'm pinging Cyphoidbomb as he filed the SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you will either find that, or a very enthusiastic fan, that has no regard for policies and guidelines, and I don't think either an asset to Wikipedia. One problem I have with the hundreds of edits is that I am almost certain they will be found to not have contributed to source or references, since that is almost impossible to find without looking at a primary source. I actually can't see an end result difference between fan base mass article creations and paid advertising article creation. They both end up adding articles that 10 years from now will far more likely than not end up the same as when created.

I think that I am going to step back from being involved in these type articles. They have a large fan-base and I see too many primary, non-sourced, or severely under sourced micro-BLP's being nudged through, as well as editors seeking cleanup being attacked as being biased against pageants. I have successfully "battled" (I feel) in at least 3 areas where I think these "battles" have resulted in vast improvements to Wikipedia. I would use another word, but that is appropriate in the instances I was involved in, and I don't think I am up for this one. I will just have to accept that we might just need articles on everything, especially after running across List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, the single sourced spin-off; List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, and future additional spin-off's this slippery slope is heading us. We will likely have articles on city pageants in the future anyway. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I happen to think that the user is a sockpuppet. The problem is, I don't know who they're a sockpuppet of, because there are apparently numerous rings involved in beauty pageant editing. I thought I was on the right track with AnnLivinova, but the accounts are all stale and the CU declined to look.

• CyberBrinda's account was created 24 June 2016. By 1 July 2016, Miss Supernational was created, apparently as a way to circumvent the salting of Miss Supranational. The salted Supranational article was created several times, and included edits by socks of AnnLivinova and Mrdhimas.
• There are significant competence issues going on here as well, like here where CyberBrinda bizarrely used a link to a directory entry for Elle MacPherson in an article on someone who is not Elle MacPherson. When I brought it up, the user blanked the page with no response.
• In these edits the user added a birthdate for a living person, supported by a blog. When I notified the user about our blog and BLP concerns, they were apparently ignored, and 20 hours later, CyberBrinda used a poorly-constructed baby name website to assert a claim that Rashi Yadav practices Hinduism. What? Based on her name? When I brought this issue up, CyberBrinda removed it with no comment. She then removed my notice that we do not use blogs, and that BLPs must be impeccably sourced.
• The user also kept irritatingly refactoring another user's comment, apparently removing the criticism, while retaining the greeting. I blocked them for this after they did it repeatedly. The criticism was in response to straight-up vandalism committed by CyberBrinda.
• There were also a spate of AfD template removals by CyberBrinda.[17][18]
• The user was admonished by Little Will for copy/pasting references into other articles without verifying that the links worked. Brinda had added deadlinks and months-old accessdates, which heavily implied that they were not being checked. Sloppy.
• And once again in this edit, Brinda adds a specific birthdate for Priyadarshini Chatterjee using this source, which doesn't seem to say anything other than that the subject was 19 at the time the article was written. It seems to me that CyberBrinda either doesn't understand our BLP concerns, or they simply don't care. Neither scenario is acceptable.
• There are other indicators of oddities. Here, where Brinda admonished a user not to be a "serial deletionist". Where did they get that phrasing from? It took them two tries. I'd argue that only cynical Wikipedians, sockmasters, and meatpuppets being coached by sockmasters would use that sort of phrasing.

Anyhow, there are numerous problems surrounding this user. The fact that they decided early on that they weren't going to respond to corrections makes it difficult to deal with them constructively. The increasing victim's mentality is counterproductive as well: "I don't need any negativities in my life." "Why are they doing this to me!?" "Because that is what you are capable of....blackmail" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comments; We can only extend being nice to the newby so far or giving generous allowances for gross ignorance. User JamesBWatson added back the external link tag with the summary "Restoring removed tag. It has nothing to do with copyright" and it was taken out again with the same summary "The external links does not violate any of the Wikipedia's policies.". Apparently she also blanked out a warning he placed on her talk page. I undid her removal of the tag. I am now requesting an indefinite block because even "if" this editor is not a sock there can be no doubt the evidence is clear this single purpose account is not here to build an encyclopedia. I also think CU should have taken a look because such disregard can only mean an editor does not worry about being blocked or banned. He or she will just start with another account or just use another one already in existence. I do hope someone can look into this. An editor that does not respect the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, nor editors and admins, to the point of blatantly ignoring them, and just as blatantly continuing his or her own agenda, is a detriment to this encyclopedia. I suppose I will have to remain in this as these pageant articles and pageant related BLP's are horrendous examples of things Wikipedia should not be or have included. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This has gone on long enough, any further disruption of any kind should result in an indefinite block. —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: CyberBrinda's behavior is absurd. In this edit they restore a flag to an infobox despite this clearly-explained edit I made shortly before. I don't know how it's possible to assume good faith when they are educated at every step and pointed to relevant guidelines, but they keep blanking discussions and continuing the disruptions. Here's yet another removal of talk page comments with no response. Will they remove maintenance templates again? Of course! They've done it numerous times before with impunity. Anyone who is incapable of adhering to established guidelines, whether it's through incompetence of just plain pissiness, should take a time out until they are ready to discuss and contribute constructively. The last thing we need is another prolific editor who has no regard for proper sourcing, discussion, guidelines, policies, community, and so forth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. The last unexplained revert was after my final warning and the user shows no interest in treating this as a collaborative encyclopaedia. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

This is a relatively urgent request to have all restrictions removed. Almost all of my time on Wikipedia is now spent on making charts as my primary username but I can not add them to Wikipedia without logging out and can not add them to any semi-protected article. I just did three charts for maternal fatality and would like to add them using my primary username but can not do that. Nor do I wish to wait six months to ask for this restriction to be removed. When it was brought up there was no decision and it was archived as a stale discussion. I still am only about half way caught up on all the things I noticed when I was blocked, and some of them involve each of the restrictions I am under and each means that I can nor make a productive contribution because of that and I have no interest in invoking IAR and making the edits anyway. I follow all the rules and always have. I was away for six months during which I continued to contribute to other projects and never once violated the block thus qualifying me for a standard offer which I am requesting. As soon as this is approved I will put one or more of these three charts into one or more articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs to work on and another 6,000 or more waiting for translations, so I am never going to run out of the graphics I am working on (so far I have done over 1,500) and have no time for wiki drama. But I would like to be able to use the work that I am creating. After all, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to your restrictions? I'm not sure what you are requesting to have removed. Also, the way you have phrased this request implies that you have secondary accounts and that you log out to evade the restrictions. Could you clarify that?--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe from this and the previous discussion that Apteva's work on charts invokes some of the issues related to his MOS ban. Tables/charts etc often require *specific* formatting which may conflict with other formatting used in the article hence the request to remove the restrictions. He is not saying he has been logging out, he is saying in order to put the material in he would need to log out and edit as an IP, and that even if he did, he wouldnt be able to make changes to semi-protected articles - he clarifies this when he says he has no wish to IAR and do it anyway. So currently his restrictions prevent him from making useful changes - the only way to make said changes would be to break the rules, and he doesnt want to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN January 2013, including the "Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account" subsection. I think more information is needed before anything can be considered, despite the fact that Apteva has done good work at Commons and has been editing well here for over a year ago, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Atlan: Ctrl+F WP:RESTRICT for "Apteva"; it's not clear if they are currently violating the restriction to one appeal every six months. I think if they let an appeal get archived wihout a proper close and didn't immediately request a proper close, then they should be blocked unless there was clear consensus to remove the restrictions.It is not at all clear to me what they want to do, what they are restricted from doing, or what the relationship between these two might be, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva's restrictions are logged at WP:Editing restrictions. His last appeal was in April of this year, which is give or take a day, 5 months ago, and that appeal was indeed archived with no resolution (I commented on it and almost no one else did). In fairness I do not think an archived request that was not closed should count towards his 6 months limit, if you are appealing a restriction you should get a clear yes/no answer. However my comment still stands - I do not think lifting restrictions from someone that were put in place specifically to prevent them making certain edits, so they can continue to make those edits is a good idea. Saying that, it has been awhile, so maybe its time to see if they can work in the area without conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really think about that. I don't really understand the urgency of re-appealing five months after the last appeal was archived without result and risking a block for the possibility of getting the sanctions lifted one month sooner, and I would probably take the burden on myself to request a close if my appeal got archived without result, but you're right that it probably shouldn't count. Stricken. I would say remove the restrictions; they've certainly done their time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the one-account restriction. A thorough explanation is needed for all use of alternate accounts, and since the vast majority of Wikipedians are already under a (de facto) similar restriction -- the policy called WP:SOCK -- explicitly allowing the use of alternate accounts should only be done if it is made clear why such an allowance is being requested. The above request ... doesn't look clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See my reply to Atlan. Its just the odd way he has phrased his request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I remember having a few head bumps on Apteva's page around the time their sanctions and block were put in place. WP:RESTRICT doesn't log any charts restrictions for Apteva, so how is this actually a violation. Or am I missing a few things here? Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the immediately preceding question, early on I was doing charts as one user name and inserting them into the article under a different name (one name on commons one on enwiki) and got yelled at for being a sock even though the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another to use after I became an admin and for articles that I could not use the other name for. All very complicated but all quite simple. Unless anything has changed in the last five years other than that now all new accounts are SUL, my recollection is that if I take a photo of a house across the street I am allowed to put it into an article under a non-linked different username, that if I am working on an article that I would get fired if my boss found me doing it, etc. ditto. Almost all of my work is creating graphics under my primary user name, and I just uploaded three, that one at least would be extremely useful for the article on that subject and I am waiting with baited breath to be able to link it under my primary username. I would prefer but will defer if needed to continue editing the 150 solar articles under this user name just for the purpose of continuity. I am more than willing to follow all rules and only have one of own, Anonymity. That one is non-negotiable, and I am 100% certain, permitted, on this platform. I simply would not have any interest in contributing anything ever if it could not be done under that one and only one condition. If you look at all of the solar edits I have done from day one you will see they were all done under this username even if I was inserting a chart that was done with the commons name. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I have done 45 charts using this username and about 1800 under my primary username. Just guessing I would say I have about 20,000 edits, 2/3 on this username (13,900 and 10,360 under my primary username), as I was trying to "run up" the edit count to get to 5,000 so I could do an RFA. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why is a different, anonymous user name any more private than the "Apteva" anonymous user name? Why would you want a separate user name for "becoming an admin"? (I did read this, but I'm afraid it didn't help me to understand, sorry). -- Begoon 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Really the only thing that you would need to read is WP:VALIDALT. I am not asking for anything more or less than what the consensus of the community has determined are legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My opinion would only be an issue if I had a different idea than what is written there and I do not. But it is my contention that it would be trivial to look through 30,000 edits and figure out a huge volume about that person and quite possibly identify them, out them, but that is totally prohibited and has already caused us to lose at least one good editor that I know of, and perhaps more. One way of making that less likely would be to avoid editing anything that would immediately identify your country, your city, your street, or your house. After I became an admin some of my edits would be as an admin and some as an editor, and as many admins did at the time at least, I have no idea of today, a separate account was used when you were in a public place and could not log in but wanted to sort categories write articles, just do ordinary tasks. But that was a long time ago and that may have changed completely. I do know that now we have a serious problem promoting admins, but I do not know how many of the current admins are using alternative accounts. Anyway, read up on WP:VALIDALT to see all the ways that I would not just want to but need to use an alternative account. Basically I want all restrictions removed so that I can do the exact same things, no more, and no less, than anyone signing up to make their first edit today. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The above seems to be in order. I support removing all restrictions. I would, however, strongly urge Apteva to put more effort into considering how his comments will be read by other users. The above "the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another [...] for articles that I could not use the other name for" very much looks like "for articles that I am not allowed edit per my restrictions". Requests for removal of restrictions should not require very careful reading and interpretation. But that's a minor issue; I still say remove the restrictions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be averse to the removal of the restrictions provided some disclosure linking the 2 accounts was made to Arbcom. All of them are CheckUsers anyway so it wouldn't be out of their ability to link your accounts, although that would be a gross breach of policy if there was no reason to do so. Unfortunately, if someday Apteva were to become an admin, I believe there must be public disclosure of alt accounts. (Any admin may correct me here). Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously have no objection to notifying Arbcom, and you are right that fishing expeditions and idle curiosity are forbidden. WP:AGF my intentions are and always have been only in the best interest of WP. Obviously as an admin you do not need to publicly reveal the accounts that you will use for privacy reasons. That would not work and if policy says you do that policy may need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would adhere to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative account, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny? Have you adhered to these conditions and prohibitions in your prior use of undisclosed alternative account(s)? -- Begoon 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that I will always adhere to all policies and guidelines, and out of 30,000 edits (give or take) I can only recall one violation and that was very early on before I knew about 3RR and an explanation would have worked far better than a block. Everything else has just been absurd wikidrama like below which I have neither the time nor interest in. I am her to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. You can either help me or I have no clue why you even have a user account. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so let me ask directly: Are you therefore of the opinion that your blocks for disruption were not the result of your violation of any policy or guideline, such as, say WP:DISRUPT? I ask because how you view what happened in the past could be indicative of what may happen in the future, if restrictions are removed. I haven't decided whether I can support this yet, so your responses are helpful. I lean towards support, but I remember the events clearly, and still have lingering concerns. -- Begoon 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that you could not get me into an argument if you dragged me there. Too much work to do. I have a backlog of thousands of graphics to do and have no time for discussion. My intent is not to read this but to make an edit as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right? Right now I just don't care about anything other than creating another useful graphic and offering it. If anyone wants to change anything, the furthest I will go is leave a comment on the talk page and let future generations sort it out. I am proud of the 1800 graphics I have done. One that I am working on now is being translated into 80 to 90 languages, meaning it will be available in native language for that many different wikis. That is far more important than discussing whether there should be a comma after Atlanta! Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Ban is a few years old. I was going to vote to support, but looking at the enormous amount of discussion and hands thrown up in frustration pre-topic ban I found here alone, I vote no. The lack of clarity in the request doesn't give me confidence either, so I won't support a reduction in the topic ban to allow editing but not policy discussion. Perhaps closer Seraphimblade has something to say? --Elvey^(t•c) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please I implore you to amend or withdraw this. There is one and only one reason for making this request now. To put a chart into an article. Surely you can see the value of having me do it using the username that uploaded that chart? Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that I don't even use this account any more other than to occasionally update the solar articles. All of the rest of the time I am on commons on my primary account creating charts which then get put into articles, but mostly are just available for articles or are already in articles. I would guess there are 500 to 1000 that get updated monthly or annually as new data becomes available, like ones showing unemployment, and the only time an article needs to be edited is to say the date range of the chart has changed in the caption. I will never run out of work creating and translating charts and that is where almost all of my time is spent. I just want to be able to use them too. Why is that such a strange request? Apteva (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My only comment is that I closed the previous discussion based upon the consensus of the community that the restriction was necessary at that time. If it is now the community's view that it is no longer necessary, it should be lifted; conversely, if there is not a community consensus to lift it, it should remain in effect. The restriction is a community sanction, not something I came up with on my own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest removing all sanctions, and that if anyone sees any hint of anything even questionable discussion here be capped to no more than two responses or ten minutes whichever comes first and one vote of support before closing the discussion and reimposing whichever portion is suggested. I will be marking this account "Not currently in use. Please contact me on commons." And not be using it for at least the rest of this year. I don't have time for controversy, and will avoid it like the plague, as I have an encyclopedia to work on that desperately needs help. You can't even look up the income in Florida without finding that the numbers have been vandalized and the page marked disputed. I will fix it but that takes time and effort. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The back and forth has lasted a couple days and may result in some confusion or perhaps inevitable talking over one another. So in the interests of clarity, I'm posting this for consideration. Does the community support/oppose the lifting of all restrictions that are currently active on Apteva? As far as I understand, the current restrictions are

Apteva's active restrictions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apteva is only to edit using one account Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that

!Voters are, naturally, free to choose whether they support the lifting of particular restrictions instead of all of them, as they desire. Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How did this get archived after only one day? Apteva (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor rapidly making pov changes to Bulgarian related articles without discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anngelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite my earlier warnings, Anngelo (talk · contribs) is rapidly making changes to a series of articles. Not only are these major changes (the editor seems to be anti-Turkic), including changes of sourced text, he's changing spellings, breaking templates, etc. I think there's a WP:CIR problem here as well as the pov issue. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for a short time (12 hours) to get their attention, and a warning given about future editing. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think you caught him just at the end of his editing cycle, given yesterday's edits, but he'll see the block notice. I've also posted to him about changing quotations (which he's done to match his pov). Doug Weller talk 11:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • He's back @Black Kite:. Both User:Crovata and User:David.moreno72 have reverted him today and User:Chewings72 has warned him to no effect. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anngelo (talk · contribs) has now been blocked 48 hours for vandalism by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Call for topic ban or indefinite block for racial insult

I've already noted that this editor is anti-Turk. Now I find that he's changed "Turk or Turks most often refers to" to "Turk or Turks most often refers to taking up the asshole" [19]. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor is not only anti-Turk, but anti-logic. Did not do one constructive edit. There is material for indefinite block, the community could wait the expiration time of the current block, but if such disruptive edits continue then there's no good from waiting, it's a waste of time and energy.--Crovata (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a little explaining. That could never be called a constructive edit. WP is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia. Apparently they do not see the difference, and simply need to be educated. If they are unable to constructively edit anything a block is needed but if they are only unglued in one topic area, that calls for a topic block only. I see our job though, not as one of weeding out bad editors, but making everyone into a good editor. Apteva (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an openly racist editor - we should have no tolerance for such editors, not try to talk them out of being racist. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:!HERE Meters (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What does it for me is that Anngelo has made no effort to communicate with other editors in any fashion. No matter what his motives, that lack of communication plus his behavior should equal an indefinite block. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy. Obvious nationalist is obvious. That plus the racism and vandalism is indefinite block material. Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I feel pretty confident that it's safe to interpret the Arbcom decisions regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans in such a way that we could enforce a discretionary sanctions topic ban on Anngelo from any page relating to Bulgaria or the Turkish peoples, broadly construed. However, his contributions lead me to believe that if he is topic banned, he'd either immediately violate said ban (which I'd respond to with an indefinite block), try to sockpuppet around it (if he is not already a sock of some other blocked crank), or never log back in. In the first two cases, the only practical difference between that and indeffing him now would be a little extra WP:ROPE. In the last case... It's really kinda hair-splitting since he wouldn't be editing anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Though, since I've just had to notify him of those sanctions, that does mean that I can't just throw the topic ban at him just yet... This'll still work as a safety net if we don't arrive at a community topic ban (or indef block) here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and/or indef block - Indefinite blocks are not necessarily permanent. If he wants to start talking and agrees to a voluntary topic ban from all pages concerning Bulgaria or Turkish peoples, then we can give him more WP:ROPE. Were it not for Apteva's arguments (which I agree with the broader principle of, though not this particular application), I'd've called a WP:SNOW consensus and indeffed Anngelo already. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (voluntary is fine), oppose indef, as they are synonymous, as said editor has as I see it only edited that area, and we are losing editors at an alarming rate, and need to be more helpful at turning bad editors into good ones. We used to have 5,000 active editors and are down to 3,000 instead of the 10,000 we need. Please note on user talk page "Any edit on any Bulgaria or Turkish peoples page other than the talk page will bring an immediate and undiscussed indef block." Apteva (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block and/or topic ban It's clear that he will probably not be a constructive contributor. Indef might be needed here, but we can take a chance on it, if he keeps editing disruptively, he'll get blocked anyway. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clear cut case of not being here to build an encyclopedia --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef - user has shown intent to continue racist POV campaign and refusal to communicate after a block. Let them own up to it in an unblock request, or let them gtfo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block - User is WP:NOTHERE and a topic ban in this case is simply too little. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content

GTVM92 (talk · contribs), who has been banned for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" three times before, despite numerous warnings is still keen to do so in his recent edits. Please consider 1, 2 and 3 as examples for recent activity. Pahlevun (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify the editor. I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

About this, I can said if you are living in Iran, you should know that which party won that election and their leader was who. I don't add references about election of a party's leader in 1990's to the page! I only edit inbox like what I see in results section of English and Persian articles. But about it, I add the leaders that you said in the list's main article that they were the list's leaders in that election. Please see your edits in the main articles! This change has made after a high ranking of party (Shajoni) said the news. I add the reference when I changed the name and also to the main chapters of article. As you see: "In 2016, the association removed "Combatant" from it's name." GTVM92 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking a content dispute. Here, the user clearly manipulates the numbers. In this version, the results are given from three different sources. (Nohlen et al, IPU, Abrahamian) None of them cites Executives of Construction Party. He did add them with 47 seats and changed sourced material (Nohlen et al). Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@GTVM92: In this edit, you added Morteza Motahari as General-Secretary of Combatant Clergy Association (1977–1979) while he never held the office, Fazlollah Mahallati was the General-Secretary between 1977 and 1981 (ISNA). What do you have to say? Pahlevun (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Cut-and-paste moves and other disruption

A Malaysian IP editor has been disruptive for a long time about film titles. At first, the IP editor engaged in repeated copy-paste moves, mostly to The Howling: New Moon Rising (for example, [20], [21]). After I reverted those copy-paste moves four times, the editor finally started an requested move. It failed. Undeterred, the IP editor went through a bunch of articles and changed the name of the film in that article ([22]) and in a bunch of other articles ([23], [24], among others). Alright, somewhat disruptive, but not worth going to ANI. The truly disruptive behavior comes in the form of changing working links to redlinks: [25], [26], [27], [28]. After I fixed these links, the IP editor edit warred to change them back to broken redlinks: [29], [30]. Plus, the IP editor still seems to be engaging in cut-and-paste moves, as of a few days ago: [31] and [32]; [33] and [34]. There are probably more that I'm missing.

I'm not exactly sure to stop this editor from edit warring to reinstate broken links and making cut-and-paste moves, but these are the IP addresses I've encountered so far:

• 1.32.75.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 2
• 110.159.78.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 19
• 115.133.104.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 20
• 60.52.1.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 22
• 115.133.105.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 23
• 115.133.105.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 25
• 115.133.104.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.134.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.202.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 27
• 115.133.111.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 28

This editor seems to be the most active, and perhaps the only active, editor on 115.133.0.0/16 and 60.50.0.0/16, but there are other ranges that the IP editor is also active on. I'm not really sure what to suggest. I can check the range contribs tool for cut-and-paste moves every few days, but that's really tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like an edit filter might be needed Pinging @Samtar: and @Musikanimal: who are our resident edit filter experts --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I too have been dealing with this IP at articles related to Dakota's Summer, the Mostly Ghostly films, and the Feast (2005 film) sequels (e.g. [35] – so add 1.32.74.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ). It would be really great if their disruption could be curtailed once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope I'm not making a huge deal out of minor things, but, last year, the IP editor did a cut-and-paste move of Road House 2: Last Call to Road House 2. When fixing this yesterday, I cleaned up a few other things, such as File:Roadhouse2.jpg (diff), which the IP editor had changed to point to what is now a redirect. Apparently, the IP editor realized today I had changed the file and reverted me (diff). I'm not so precious that I run to ANI when reverted, but isn't it important for a non-free file to point to the correct location? I don't think MusikAnimal got properly pinged before. I'm skeptical that an edit filter could be written that would catch this sort of stuff (cut-and-paste moves, disruptively changing links), but, then again, I'm not really that skilled with regexps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Advocacy-pushing disruption over at UK Independence Party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is experiencing regular disruptive editing from User:RoverTheBendInSussex, a self-professed UKIP member. Multiple reliable sources authored by academic political scientists and published in peer-reviewed outlets testify that the party are nationalist or British nationalist in ideological orientation. User:Rover is unhappy with this, and has been edit warring over a period of ten days to remove "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" from the article infobox and replace it with either "British patriotism" or "Civic nationalism" ([36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]). Despite their repeated claims to the contrary, they have provided no reliable sources to support their claim. There is a talk page consensus of other editors that "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" should be in the infobox, and Rover has not overturned this, nor gained a single editor to support their calls for change. The issue has been extensively discussed at the article talk page; the option of an RfC has been offered to User:Rover but they have ignored this and continued to edit war. Myself, User:Snowded, and User:Bondegezou [update at 19:19: and now User:Elektrik Fanne] have been reverting their edits; in my case that has probably pushed me into edit war territory, for which I apologise, but I was trying to uphold consensus. Rover's behaviour is textbook disruptive editing—refusal to "get the point", tendentious editing, acting against consensus, resisting requests for comment, and an opposition to verifiability—it's all there. Given that this has been continuing for some time now, I thought it time to get an administrator involved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I recall events, User:RoverTheBendInSussex removed "nationalism", which triggered a discussion on Talk, and Rover participated in that. However, it soon became apparent that everyone else participating was happy with the tag, and Rover's evidence against didn't hold up. After a few days of debate during which the label was mostly absent from the article, I re-added the label in this edit on 16:05, 25 Sep. Rover reverted here two days later. A few hours later, having reviewed the Talk page and only seeing a stronger consensus for this label, I re-added it here. About 37 hours later, we get to today: Rover re-removed, User:Midnightblueowl re-added and Rover re-removed in short succession. So, I agree with Midnightblueowl that Rover is ignoring consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There haven't been a lot of people involved in the Talk discussion, as is common these days, but you can see it at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#British_Nationalism. Rover made his case, this was examined at some length, everyone else rejected the arguments, Rover got a bit ad hominem-y. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• That whole talk page conversation appears to be RoverTheBendInSussex arguing against a consensus of other editors. There also seems to be an element of WP:IDHT in that he is repeating the same arguments that have previously been rejected. Coupled with the serious edit-warring and this edit, I would say a topic-ban on the article is warranted to prevent any further wasting of other editor's time. Someone who admits to being a UKIP supporter, edits the article, and then posts this edit summary "Leave editing this page to impartial individuals" is clearly not concerned with WP policies. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In the talk section you didn't admit you had a bias in this instance, although several comments you made did present leakage. The issue I have with this is you have ignored multiple links I have posted, you previously agreed on "civic nationalism", and then when somebody else who happens to be a Labour Party supporter pushed for "Nationalist" or "British Nationalist", you went back on your word and changed it again. It is worth noting you seem to have a special interest updating "Radical Right" politics, and extreme left wing politics, be it; Vladimir Lenin, Ken Livingstone, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and others of an extreme left ideology. Are you a supporter of left-wing politics, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Socialism and the UK Labour Party. If so, I question your impartiality in updating the UKIP page. [44] What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP. I have clearly stated facts that directly contradict the ideology of "British Nationalist" or "Nationalist". In the simplest explanation, how can UKIP be "Nationalist" if written into their Constitution is reconnection with the Commonwealth [45], and a policy of Global trade. Not to mention building partnership connections with Global nations? [46] [47] and immigration [48]. The clearest definition of Nationalism is; "a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together." This description does not fit UKIP's policies or mandate. Regardless of which anti-UKIP tabloid or pro-EU/anti-UKIP academic research you post. Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP, and is pushing for a ban against editing the page so people of his ilk, who oppose UKIP openly can change the page status to push a negative rhetoric and vision of UKIP. Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP. What does a Wikipedia user have to admit before their opinion is deemed biased against a page they are adding. The SNP are defined as being Civic Nationalists whilst their supporters resort to near daily anglophobia and violence online, and have been videoed/had radio interviews expressing both verbal and physical violence against people with alternate opinions. [49]
      [50]
      [51]
      [52]
      [53]
      [54] Yet they get defined as being Civic Nationalists on their page, a status I felt fair to be added to UKIP's page. Yet UKIP, the party that has had no hand in Nationalist violence on air or in the general public are defined as being the more tribal form of Nationalism. How utterly pathetic! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (GMT)
      • It would probably be a good idea if you didn't import your arguments on the UKIP talk page to here; this is not the venue. You appear to have three problems; 1: you are accusing others of having a POV when you clearly have one yourself; 2: You are edit-warring against multiple other editors against talk page consensus; 3: Your use of sources appears to be veering into WP:SYNTH, something that has already been pointed out on the talk page. You have two choices here; either you accept the consensus that is against you here (or open an RfC, something that has already been proposed), or your editing of the page will need to be restricted in order to prevent the huge time-sink that has already occurred. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I know that this probably isn't the place but I do want to counter some of the slanderous falsities that Rover has promoted here, lest uninvolved editors mistake them for fact. "You have ignored multiple links I have posted". False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist. It was Rover who completely and utterly misrepresented these five sources in order to promote their own personal view of UKIP. "What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP". What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. What I am also "pushing for" is the acceptance that there is a consensus on the Talk Page which should not be contravened by the unilateral actions of one editor. "Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP" - I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition; anyone who seems to disagree with Rover's behaviour is immediately accused of being a lefty with a strong anti-UKIP bias. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I wonder if the most logical action here would simply to impose a 0RR restriction on Rover. This, I think, would be the best way of proceeding without preventing him from commenting on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
            • "False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist." - No. Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism. Which discussed UKIP within the context of the article about Civic Nationalism. "What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals." - I provided links by the University of Cardiff and Fabian Society. Both those links were academic reports. "I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition" - Try reading editors, edit histories. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". ~ "No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity." - 6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea." You have not come to a consensus, and your answer is to go over the head of a editor who doesn't make a habit of disagreeing in this manner, has been editing on Wikipedia for years and has provided plenty of counter argument to what you wish to add to the info-box. None of which you have provided a counter-argument for. Look above. You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate. My concern is people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon. The status has been on Wikipedia for a day and someone has already screencaptured it to attack UKIP proving my point. [55] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (GMT)
              • Declaring their political allegiance to UKIP then turning around and questioning Midnightblueowl's impartiality in updating the UKIP page kind of smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it? Blackmane (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
              • "You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate." Let's get this clear - no-one wants to block you. They do, however, want you to stop your edit-warring and associated disruption on the UKIP article, which almost certainly will lead to a block or topic-ban if it continues. The choice is yours. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism." This is either a deliberate lie or reflects a total inability to understand the sources in question. Anyone can look at these sources: these are the two which Rover has claimed analytically describe UKIP as "civil nationalist" ([56]; [57]), and these are the three that Rover claims support their claim that UKIP adhere to an ideology of "British patriotism" ([58] [59] [60]). As anyone can see, none of these claims are substantiated by the links in question, and this is something that has been told to Rover on many occasions now. One can also see how Rover deliberately misrepresents sources with their link to a Twitter post above; they claim that "people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon" but on the Twitter account in question, the commentary is dealing not with the "British nationalism" that Rover takes issue with, but the description of the party as "right-wing".
  • "6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue,"" - yes, I have a bias with regard to how Rover should be sanctioned because I have been dealing with their disruptive editing for ten days now. That is a very different thing from admitting some anti-UKIP bias. Rover is again deliberately misrepresenting my words to suit their own agenda
  • As uninvolved editors should be able to see now, Rover has no intention of playing by the rules. When there is a consensus on a particular point, they insist "you have not come to a consensus". They maintain that they have provided "plenty of counter-argument" but have only done so by totally misrepresenting sources and ignoring the fact that their arguments have been consistently examined and rejected by a range of other editors. They continue to claim that the information in the article is "NOT accurate" despite the fact that said information is based squarely on the claims made by academic political scientists in the very best quality reliable sources (moreover, they have been pointed to WP:Verifiability, not truth at least twice now). They have now been offered an RfC on multiple occasions and have ignored the offer, instead continuing to insist that they are right and that editors who disagree with them are politically motivated and should desist from editing altogether. They've had multiple chances to cease their behaviour and have failed to do so. I think that the proposal of a topic ban is a good one and would welcome the involvement of administrators to put a stop to this disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:RoverTheBendInSussex, as I've said on the Talk page in the past, you have raised some appropriate points of nuance that I think warrant coverage in the article text (I've made suggestions where). However, you are not new to Wikipedia. You know how the project works. You can't win every argument. You will achieve more if you accepted when consensus is against you. It's not up to me, but I support User:Black Kite's suggestions for how to avoid the "time-sink". Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the end, this is quite a simple concept and one answer from the editor

RoverTheBendInSussex, are you going to stop edit-warring against others, and trying to claim others should not be editing, on the UKIP page? If the answer is yes, then we can close this and carry on. If the answer is no (or if you continue to do so after answering "yes"), then a topic-ban on the UKIP page or (more likely) an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE are in order. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is all rather pathetic. I have provided clear and concise explanations as to why the edit is wrong, and doesn't match UKIP ideology. Nobody has even argued the point I have made. Now because I disagree with an inaccurate and potentially damaging edit. I am threatened with removal/blocking. My choice is thus; Put up with an inaccurate edit which I have clearly explained as being wrong citing examples of it being wrong, and comparisons to other parties showing it is wrong. Or fight my corner and be banned. No proper debate about the subject has been had. More people have made threats to me than I have tried to cause conflict, and nobody has attempted to explain the reasoning for the edit. Utterly pathetic. I encourage people to actually debate this edit on the talk page, or would that result in another barrage of threats to ban me as well? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 01 October 2016 (GMT)
  • You might be thinking that once you submit an argument against to the arguments of others, somehow you're right and they are wrong. Wikipedia works by agreement, and I think it's safe to say you have had no success at all with getting (almost) anyone to agree with your view on the definition of UKIP's nationalism, and also the sources which you have used to try backing up your views. Moreover, no one owns anything on Wikipedia, and some of your comments on the UKIP talk page, like calling others to "desist from editing this page" seems like you like others who disagree with your political philosophy from editing. And as mentioned above, almost no one agrees with your quoted sources and way of explaining them to qualify your views. Plus, "so people of his ilk" above (did you guys miss that?) isn't helping your case in the least bit. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not "pathetic" to request that an editor stop edit-warring and casting aspersions on others; indeed, the community shouldn't need to ask that you follow site policy. I currently don't see anything from you that says this won't continue. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Because of ongoing activity, I think we could use two rangeblocks to help deal with the long-term abuse case known as the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. The following two ranges are problematic:

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:....
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:....

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption continues. Here are the two groups of IPs that, if rangeblocked, would greatly reduce the problem.

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:B4:1162:81D:2001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:F89E:B92B:3040:763F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:30EB:DCB9:4691:DD25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:64AA:F8CC:FFD0:B789 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:9D73:FE72:903C:2E10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:6425:B488:DD7:4BDA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:AC8A:C684:76A3:F869 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:D8EB:6A66:B806:16E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 28 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:5BF:42DF:82F:60ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:19D:A8E9:5C50:83C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25–27 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1F6:7521:C02:2818 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:8456:6E75:6F01:5A3B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 17 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3892:BF67:1313:6A00 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:658A:57B1:68B7:51BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 13–14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:256E:561D:81E:47A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:403:8439:1BBB:1398 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:89D7:A4D0:F3FD:FB41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:B084:6AC1:8683:A659 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 7–8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:F9FE:A22E:9C4:7250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4–6 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1ED:7B8A:4B63:6CD0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3DD0:4330:2D3A:94AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDF:4090:B6FA:1F9F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:A1B1:7026:F21E:EC88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:1065:F84F:3C30:D493 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDD:7D4:CA78:2794 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 30 August – 1 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:88EA:B279:8585:C7F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24 August 2016

It would be great to see this extremely persistent person blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And another rangeblock is needed, to deal with more recent activity:

• 49.180.141.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.173.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.165.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.160.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.138.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.144.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 27 September 2016
• 49.180.145.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16 September 2016

This guy is obsessive and persistent in his vandalism. Are we giving up and letting him have his way? Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Allegations by User:Castncoot

User:Castncoot has accused me and User:JFG (who is not an admin but does have some admin privileges) of abusing our authorities. diff

These claims are completely bogus. Neither of us has even sought to exercise any such authority. They are part of an ongoing campaign of low-level disruption, intimidation and personal attacks designed to hinder forming a consensus on whether or not to move the New York State article away from the base name New York. Castncoot is strongly opposed to the move proposal.

I have tried to discuss on Castncoot's user talk page on several occasions, and the response has been baseless allegations of disruption against myself. Other users have raised objections to Castncoot's behaviour, but not always on the user talk page, and so these comments are now deeply buried in the discussion. As I write Castncoot has not responded to my asking for a withdrawal of these latest and strongest allegations, but has not made any other edits either, and is possibly on a short Wikibreak.

They are now again editing and have responded on the project talk page but not on their user talk page: Asking me to withdraw such content amounts to a cover-up and subterfuge on its own, which I will not engage in. [61] I have requested they respond here. [62] [63] Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But I think the time has come to escalate this to ANI. Other users have adopted similar tactics in the New York discussion, possibly following Castncoot's poor example, but have not gone so far as this. Hopefully an appropriate censure will set some boundaries and cool their passion a great deal. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said previously, although in reference to a different case, if Castncoot has evidence of corruption and conspiracy they better be able to put up diffs, else shut up. The histrionics and hyperbole are not conducive to collegiate discussion. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That previous incident doesn't IMO influence whether or not the current one is acceptable, but it might have a bearing on what the appropriate response is, if the pattern is similar. Can you be specific? Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)\

It's a personal attack, unless they can back up the allegations with evidence. At the very least a stern warning is called for. Kleuske (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As the response now alleging cover-up and subterfuge (diff above) shows, it's part of a pattern on New York RM related talk pages. I have not named the other editors now falling into this pattern, and don't want to clog ANI with every incident. My hope in raising this is to improve the tone of the discussion there, or at least put a brake on further escalation. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense, Andrewa. Rather than whining on this page that I've pointed out issues with a specific action you took on another page, if you're convinced that you did nothing wrong, then what you should have done (and still can do) is to simply write one or two sentences explaining your own statements on that specific page where I pointed out the action-specific comments. And then move on. Let the readers come to their own conclusions. If you truly did nothing deliberately wrong, your explanation should speak for itself. I've done nothing wrong here, I never meant any personal attack, and this is not a personal attack. But I won't restrain my freedom of expression if I sincerely believe that an egregious action was committed. And stop the holier-than-thou nonsense when the side supporting the move was behaving no differently from the side opposing the move. Castncoot (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And if you do explain yourself in good faith on that page, I in turn will accept it in good faith and not contest it on that page. Castncoot (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, user:Castncoot. You have made serious and baseless allegations, which you still refuse to either justify or withdraw. I have better things to do than play these games.

This is not about sides, although I do admit that I think that your side or team as you have called it elsewhere has benefited from the way your breaches of behavioural guidelines and policy have obscured the issues. This is just about one of those breaches.

I think I have been more than patient. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I stand by my direct, action-targeted statements and will not be forced to remove these statements. Are you really serious? That would be unethical on all levels. On the other hand, it's your turn to justify your own statements on the talk page of WP:HLJC. To blame a whole move decision (which occurred before this incident, by the way) somehow upon my alleged "breaches of behavioural guidelines and policy" is far-fetched and takes away from your credibility. We had an administrative moderator throughout who did a very good job, in fact - are you denying this? I've already specifically explained what I've written on the talk page – there's nothing to "justify" in that I've pointed out your own statements verbatim. Are you also denying your own statements? You, on the other hand, have not explained your conduct vis-à-vis those statements on that talk page. Do I believe that you should remain an admin, based upon that conduct? At the bottom of my heart, no. But I don't make those decisions, nor do I have any interest in seeing your adminship removed. I have tried to stay above the fray at all times. However, if I see something I believe is wrong, I will indeed point it out without hesitation, as that is also a part of staying above the fray. Castncoot (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not blaming you for the failure of the latest RM. There were many factors, and two of the panel of three very capable editors were unable to call a consensus.

I don't think you intimidated them, but you may well have intimidated others. So yes, I do think that there is a horrible possibility that it could have gone the other way if you and others had adhered to behavioural guidelines and policies, but we will never know and that is water under the bridge.

My goal is now to remove the threat of such breaches from the ongoing discussion, to whatever extent is possible. Isn't that reasonable? Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Truth be told, I felt the same way about those supporting the move - in one particular instance coming to my head immediately, one editor (another admin apparently and shockingly, no less) directly misquoting 20-odd move-opposing editors' statements in a mocking way. Are you also suggesting that the administrative moderator on board the entire time wasn't doing their job properly? By the way, why don't you just explain your statements on the WP:HLJC talk page? I'm sure other editors would have had the same thoughts as I. Your explanation should speak for itself if you made those statements with purely good intentions, and if that is the case, then I can them acknowledge them affirmatively on that page. Castncoot (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not about the other admin who paraphrased your !vote as the sky is falling (I think that's the incident you mean) or even about my own behaviour. It's about yours. If you wish to criticise our behaviour, the next step is to raise it on our user talk pages.

But I fear we are both wearing our welcome thin. I know I asked you to reply here, but I'm as tired of this as others are of reading it. So I may well leave it to others to reply to any further posts... this page is after all for input from other admins rather than discussion between ourselves (that should have happened on our user talk pages).

I will of course respond to any questions from others. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to @Kleuske: for your comment. Indeed that is entirely the thrust of my comment. I see again that Castncoot has repeated their allegation of misbehaviour against Andrewa without evidence.@Castncoot:, if you're alleging anything against another editor, administrator or otherwise, pointing at a talk page thread and saying "look there" tells those of us who have commented nothing. Furthermore, you have accused Andrewa of misconduct and ulterior motives indicating he has not made those statements with purely good intentions, again without evidence. I'm not sure about others but I view this behaviour quite dimly and would expect a warning that further such accusations without evidence will attract a block. Blackmane (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

While it is mild in comparison to the allegations that brought me to ANI, I think I should call attention to this edit and subsequent (perhaps ongoing) discussion at User talk:Castncoot#Trojan horses. As I say there, I regard this as another personal attack.

But I'd welcome other opinions on this. In particular, if it is to be regarded as one, then it's only fair to User:Castncoot to make this clear, in view of the threat of a block. It's all about setting some boundaries. TIA Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to take over my account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org saying that IP 202.69.12.62 has requested that the password to my account be reset, probably hoping they'd be able to intercept the email somehow. The IP, which geolocates to Islamabad, Pakistan, is currently CU-blocked by Materialscientist, but with no tag identifying the master, so I can only guess who it is (IMHO probably Najaf ali bhayo, but it might also be LanguageXpert), and since the person behind it probably is trying to do the same with other accounts too, I thought I'd let you know... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

People do this all the time; not so much because they think they can intercept the email, but because they're morons. Used to happen to me once or twice a month. It can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This happens with socks I block, as long as your email password is strong and you haven't communicated with these socks via email, you should be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's that common it's odd that noone has tried it with my account before, people usually just call me nasty things. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It happens to me once in a while, every few months, or so. Last time was on July. You can safely ignore it, I did some of the times. Some other times I tried to play safer: I logged in (to check I still can); take a look at my contributions (to check no one use my account); change password (to invalidate the temporary one, I hope). The procedure is prettu much standard over the net, I presume; yet I think Wikimedia could do better. Possibly on our first logging after this there could be a few questions or suggestions. Like logging if the request was a fake one (they could catch some IPs making lots of attempts), suggest to change contributions and change password anyway :-), or simply provide a link to invalidate any temp password. I don't know... I know little about security, but as a user the message seems poor, it feels like "someone tried to hack your account and we do not care much". - Nabla (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be safe, please make sure you use a unique password on Wikipedia. Don't use the same password you use elsewhere, and consider using a password manager. There have been a lot of data breaches recently and it's quite possible one or more of your passwords has been compromised. Have I Been Pwned? is a good site for checking if your email address has been part of a data breach. None of this contradicts what others have said; this particular password reset is all but certainly nothing to worry about, I'm just giving general advice. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• What Floq said. If I think there may be a particular user involved, I privately forward to the blocking CU, or if not any, to any CU so they can take a peek if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote summary in RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

Would an uninvolved admin please have a look over the recent addition of a "vote summary" to the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft by IP editor 2603:3024:200:300:C67:8989:F806:A1A2, and determine if it should stay? Diffs:1,2. I have discussed reasons for excluding it on the Talk page (that vote counting is disruptive per WP:NOT#DEM, WP:NOTAVOTE), but other editors are in favour of inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's useless, but it's not off-topic and there isn't any other reason to remove it per WP:TPO. Best to just leave it, the closing admin will just ignore it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do suggest that it is off-topic, in that it is not participating in the RfC. Given the IP editor's lack of other contributions, there would be a strong case for a WP:DUCK->WP:BANREVERT, but I do not like WP:DUCK as a reason for anything other than a WP:SPI, so do not make such a case. I do, however, think that the later addition of !voting editors' registration dates & edit counts to the table is pretty poor form.[64] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised the page isn't under ECP.Doug Weller talk 06:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer a kind of "reverse ECP", where topics and pages relating to the "Gamergate" playground fight are edited only by the SPAs and warriors obsessed with them, but locked away and invisible to the rest of us. A kind of "walled sandbox" if you like, with the purpose of the walls being to keep the participants inside, and protect everyone else from the insanity. And I'm only partly kidding... -- Begoon 03:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That, sir, is a brilliant idea! Guy (Help!) 10:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Any closing admin will ignore it. The draft clearly has no consensus and that is evident without counting. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic behavior at Portal:Current events

The IP editor in question:

• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C052:8350:C710:B155 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.67.17 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C9D8:9FC2:D559:4ABC (talk · contribs)
• 98.167.194.3 (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.114.41 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk · contribs)

And potentially more. Judging by their editing patterns and Geolocate results, I believe they are one and the same person. While it's not exactly out of the ordinary to edit from multiple locations or from different dynamic IP addresses, it is rather alarming that their behavioral problems persist in spite of that.

The editor's field of interest seems limited to Portal:Current events, and they have been making consistent contribution to the page, which should be applauded. However, I would have to point out:

• Here and here the editor took it upon themselves to revert a permanently banned editor; unfortunately, the "banned editor" in question is still making contributions as of this moment, and appears to have a clean record. The reverts did not seem to have sufficient merits - certainly not given in their summaries.
• Here, in a rather contentious edit war, they accused someone who undid their previous revert of being a sock - without offering any evidence. Here they proceeded to make accusations of vandalism, on rather flimsy grounds. Possibly under the impressions that they had "consensus" and were fighting one single vandal, they attempted one further revert, going over WP:3RR. They were summoned to discuss on the talk page, but did not show up. The editor appeared to prefer arguing through edit summaries - which isn't what edit summaries are for. This kind of behavior has persisted.
• The editor's remarks have a tendency of being perceived as uncivil. Here they referred to someone as "delusional" - and while the previous editor might not have put the item under the appropriate heading, they did not either. Here they essentially derided an editor as having a pre-college grasp of the English language. In the page, they again went over WP:3RR.
• Rather snide remarks, as seen here, followed by a pointy dummy edit. Also seen here.
• They insist on using "Obama administration" in place of "The U.S.", and will rapidly revert any attempt to rephrase it, as seen here. I was personally a party in one of such instances, during which I was reverted, accused of committing "bias through omission", accused again, and again. I do admit in the heat of the moment I did not disengage when I should certainly have - although to be fair, I omitted the phrase because it did not appear anywhere in any of the sources given, a fact seemingly entirely lost to the editor. It appears while accusing others of perpetrating a bias, the editor also has a POV to push. Notably in the process the editor also reverted, without careful consideration, other edits that might be far less debatable, purely because they were angered by the debatable ones. In an unrelated case, source was yet again disrespected.
• Very quick to make accusations of bias, as seen here and here. Might have a point, though it could always have been expressed more elegantly.
• "who th fk is this biased guy!"
• Remarkably specific accusation.
• Not on Current events, but "are you a "PAID" agent for Mr. Doocy?"

I admit I might not be able to entirely keep my cool when dealing with this editor, so for now I should disengage. But this editor - if they could be brought from the venue of edit summaries - should be allowed an opportunity to rethink the way Wikipedia works, as well as how to deal with other editors, like-minded ones or not.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention the hectic scene of Portal:Current events, where edit wars happen almost on a daily basis and where there is hardly any moderation going on. Given its time-sensitive nature, issues are rarely resolved through dialogue, consensus is rarely reached or even attempted. If nothing should be done, irrelevant content, POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing will remain a recurring feature of that particular place. [User:Morningstar1814|Morningstar1814]] (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As of now I am unsure whether the editor in question is willing to engage in discussions regarding their behavior - though it appears they've certainly received the message, as seen here, again through edit summaries, which is slightly confusing. If I'm reading it correctly, this complain has been regarded as a henious piece of propaganda. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

There are multiple IP that add in the "References Cited" section, several books of "Paolo Rampini" on diecast subjet. This users are adding the links also in the italian wikipedia. If you insert "Paolo Rampini" (with inverted commas) in the search box you will find 25 pages with this books. There are tecniques to block this advertizing users and clean the pages?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs adding these (and nothing else):

• 37.176.229.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.68.207.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.114.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.157.192.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.134.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.159.39.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Defo looks like spamming to me. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to start cleaning them up. For prevention, I'm not aware of anything other than the spambot, which is (afaiaa) for links, not text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All done. Edit filter is the only obvious way to fix this if it continues. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 93.68.234.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 31.157.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Any chance of an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Having a look at the possibility of a filter now - testing at Special:AbuseFilter/773 for a little bit to see what we're up against -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor making direct threats of physical violence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You made this edit summary Don't you dare call me a "Pakistani POV" pusher again, you will find that you are not that "Bulletproof".

I never called him a Pakistani POV pusher. I said "reverting Pakistani POV edit". He is making ridiculous excuses on his talk page, how he interpreted my username, and making false allegations that I called him POV pusher. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• BoomerangI have been following the Nom's contributions ever since he popped up and went straight to an AFD. This should be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The editor in question has already explained to the Nom that calling another editor "POV pusher" leads to a block/ban on wikipedia. Nom is now trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. If he does not understand the meaning of this phrase and only takes the "literal" meaning of every single English word that is said to him, he has serious competency issues. WHEN A PERSON WRITES SOMETHING IN QUOTES "" HE IS IMPLYING THAT THE LITERAL MEANING SHOULD NOT BE USED. I would like to recommend that the Nom clicks this link and goes to the definition of "bulletproof" at dictionary.com. It will show him that this word when used in an informal setting like the internet means Informal. safe from failure; without errors or shortcomings and beyond criticism: E.G a bulletproof system; a bulletproof budget. Requesting a speedy close so that this is not turned into the "mountain" I told about earlier. TouristerMan (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Every verb/adjective has some informal meaning. We use the most common meaning. A username as Sheriff will use the obvious meaning. Taking his username too seriously. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that an administrator issue a firm warning against both these editors for disruptive behavior, who both need a reminder that this is a collaborative project where editors are expected to assume good faith of our colleagues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 I agree TouristerMan (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I assume that you will cease all disruptive editing in the future? Wonderful. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 can you hint at my disruptive contributions? I just put in stuff about entertainment and tourism. Which edits caused disruption? (I would like to apologize beforehand if any edits were disruptive). TouristerMan (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You were warned for edit warring in the past although that was 2 or so months ago and I'm not sure if this behaviour has continued. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@TouristerMan: That would be your defense above of an allusion to violence against another editor. I consider your comment to be overly pedantic and dismissive of a genuine concern. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne no I was never warned. I do my best to stay away from controversy. I am more of a user than an editor. I edit only when I have complete sources etc. 2 months ago I had not even created an account? How can you warn someone who is not even editing? did you by any chance drop by my house and warn me mano a mano? 2 months ago I was not on wikipedia. @User:Cullen328 what defence? You said both the nom and the editor who made the statement should be warned. I said yes they should both be warned. I could have commented on this debate on the TP of Sherrif is in Town as I stalk his TP, but I thought it will be just a simple case of two editors moving on with life. But when the Nom came here I made my comment. I do not defend anyone, I speak the truth simple as that. TouristerMan (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

TouristerMan, why don't you accept that you had problems with my AFD votes? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof Batman I have problems with your competency. If you do not understand what a phrase within Quotes implies. You should learn that before engaging in discussion, as this is quite common in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

99.99999999999999999999999% of the people use the word "Bulletproof" in one context, while 0.000000000000001% of the times it used in another context. Wikipedia uses formal English. You are only trying to divert the issue here as Sheriff and you share the same POV. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulletproof Batman no you are wrong. it is used quite frequently. you are telling us you are not competent in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I already explained to the nom that I did not mean what he is thinking I meant. My comment was suggestive of a block under WP:ARBIPA in case he continued with his comments about my ethnicity and nothing more than that, as it is obvious you cannot shoot someone on Wikipedia and neither do I think he had literal meanings in mind when he created his username. "Bulletproof" also means "impregnable" or "invulnerable". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TouristerMan is blanking the articles that I have created

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He is following my edits due to above discussion. can an administrator block him please? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. He never edited these articles or had any interest in those subjects. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulletproof Batman Redirects have been created according to policy. An admin will close this. Goodbye TouristerMan (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@TouristerMan: Absolutely; could you indicate the precise policy? And it would be rather unseemly to edit war over Drosera affinis... _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi usually palaeontological species are covered in genus articles. I have seen this in a large number of articles. I search for a certain species, then I am redirected to the main(genus) article. The puposes of redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects number 1 and three cover this I assume. TouristerMan (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Species articles are fine, especially if they have an image and some content that unique to that species. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak yes that is why I did not edit any article that gave information unique to that species. Can you take a look and revert any changes that you do not like? TouristerMan (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think he is LanguageXpert. He commented on that SPI, after this edit war on subjects where he never edited before. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AllSportsfan16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AllSportsfan16 (talk · contribs)

• I do not think this user knows how the consensus process works, despite my best attempt at explain WP:BRD the user keeps insisting that they are right. I did my best to explain that a consensus takes time and that editors need a chance to weigh in here: Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016.

• Warnings given:

• 1. [65]
• 2. [66]

In addition to the warnings this editor has also broken WP:3RR at Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This user undid my good faith edit, using WP: BRD. However it clearly states that WP:BRD is not a reason to undo good faith edits. He should have left my edit alone in the first place, but he and several other did not. I tried to talk about it, but no one see to want to respond to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass blanking without consensus is not in good faith when editors tell you to gain a consensus first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting to many times, but my edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You can always self revert and wait for other editors to weigh in on the issue, not everyone is present here on a weekend plus you should at least give a 24 hour waiting period. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How is it mass blanking I removed a small part of the article because it violated the rules. I encourage an administrator to look at this article because it contains unsourced material such as a possible electoral vote count. It also violates WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWS AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a board regarding user conduct, even if you end up being right in the end it needs to be discussed like everything else. This wasn't a "small part" this was over 100KB worth of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well thus far Sports has not self reverted, I welcome uninvolved editors or an admin to weigh in here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any reason to remove the maps. AllSportsfan16 seems to be under the impression that just because older articles of the same type don't use maps, new articles shouldn't either. To me, the maps are an improvement and it seems that others feel the same way. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not my main argument. My main argument is that showing a map with possible electoral votes is uncited material that cannot be verified. It is content that cannot be seen anywhere else except for a wikipedia. I understand that certain people want to see it, but it's a clear violation of basic wikipedia rules. No electoral votes have been cast, so the numbers that are being displayed are not factual.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Croatoan21 – disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user (Croatoan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told many, many times what they need to change and they haven't reacted in any shape or form.

I initially brought up the user's disruptive editing on 26 September at the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page here but was told it would be better to come to AN/I. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is the worst, because it's the hardest to spot or verify -- Changes to numbers that are already unsourced by users that could, plausibly, be correcting numbers that were already vandalized. Whatever the case, it seems you aren't the only person who's noticed their unsourced changes; their talk page is full of similar notices. Eik Corell (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing, for the reasons outlined here. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting rangeblock of 67.44.208.0/22

Several IPs in this address group have been vandalizing a number of articles about Western films from the 1940s to 1960s for at least the past couple of weeks: The Yellow Tomahawk, Fort Yuma (film), The Nebraskan, The Battle at Apache Pass, Colorado (film), California Conquest, and The Black Dakotas, to name some of them. The common vandalism theme across these articles is the insertion of today's actors/actresses in the cast credits and prose of these articles, a number of those names I recognize from Disney Channel and Nickelodeon programs (Jenna Ortega, Rowan Blanchard, Isabela Moner, etc.). Obviously, these actors/actresses weren't around when these films were released.

I normally do not watch these above articles, but what got my attention is these IPs have also been vandalizing a more modern movie, Summer Forever (film), and inserting the same actors/actresses, who are not in that film. Looking through the contributions of the IPs linked me to their vandalism in the above Western films. The vandalism in the Summer Forever article dates back to late August.

Some of these articles are presently semiprotected, but this is looking like a problem that isn't gonna stop anytime soon. I specify 67.44.208.0/22 as the range, since the IP addresses have been starting with either 67.44.209.*, 67.44.210.* or 67.44.211.*. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The netblock there is 67.44.0.0/14, assigned to Hughes Network Systems. Obviously, a /14 is too large to block, and you are asking for a /22 range. Just be warned, the vandal may be able to hop outside your /22 range. You may wish to ping a checkuser to see if there'd be significant collateral damage. /22 looks to be the right size to capture the 209, 210, and 211 addresses. --Yamla (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

May need help finding checkusers, but using a tool I found at WP:COLLATERAL, I haven't seen any new edits from anyone in 67.44.208.0/22, since the early hours of October 2, which is almost 48 hours. So probably not necessary right now for a rangeblock, unless they start up again and do more damage to the above articles or other related ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User:Powell to the People

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I nominated this user's user page for deletion after User:Narutolovehinata5 nominated their eponymous article Powell to the People for speedy deletion. In response, User:Powell to the People made this legal threat on my talk page diff 1 as well as this statement diff 2 on their own talk page. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the article, but I'm not as convinced that WP:NLT applies since it doesn't seem to be a threat to sue. Will leave that for other admins to decide. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The threat seems to be criminal prosecution (Interpol was referenced). Now that's downright farcical, but it appears to be an attempt to chill, which is what NLT is there to prevent. A block is appropriate, if not for NLT, for NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef, and agreeing with John from Idegon. It's close enough to a legal threat, and with the same purpose, to warrant a block. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it meets the criteria for obviously attempting to chill discussion and force their will using the legal system as a hammer. Probably some CIR going on as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

rollback of User:I2padams edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user was emergency blocked after removing multiple links (more than 1200 when I checked, but I don't know what the final number was). Is there some way to efficiently undo all of these edits? Meters (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I already took care of it with Writ Keeper's "rollback all" script. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

You and I together:) Apparently its concept of "all" doesn't really mean "all all". DMacks (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It leaks? Are you there, Writ Keeper? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

User needs talkpage access removal.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: has done the deed. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

For the record, Bish et al., the rollback script will only roll back all the edits that you see on the current page; if you're only looking at the user's 50 most recent edits, it'll only try to roll back those 50 edits. Since you can look at up to 500 edits at a time (and can thus mass-rollback up to 500 edits at a time) it's not usually that onerous a cap. 2600:100A:B129:A660:C1AC:226:1743:FA8 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oohh. You know, I recognise that, but I'd forgotten. I'll try to imprint it on memory. Do you think it'll work if I'm looking at 5000 edits? (Because I can. Just go to "500 edits", then add another nought in the URL. It takes a while to load.) Or will that crash it? Bishonen | talk 21:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

It should *work* on any amount, as long as each entry populates with a "rollback" link (thats what the script cribs off of to actually do the rollback). I can't say exactly how *quickly* it'll work, though, and it's possible that you might hit some automated throttling by Mediawiki, which would stop things partway through. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It good to see the little Writ! Don't run away again! [Sticks the little Writ Keeper in her pocket.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Springee‎‎

I'm requesting an indefinie block from editing User:Springee‎‎ for several forms of Disruptive editing, including:

• Forum shopping
  • [67] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee
  • Starts RfC instead of letting it go
• Canvassing [68][69]
  • Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process
• Refactoring others' talk page comments: [70][71][72]
• Gaming the system
  • Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor.
  • After a back-and-forth [73][74] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month.
    • And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text.
    • At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [75][76][77][78]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose.
  • More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [79] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above)
  • Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins.
  • Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go?
  • Bad-faith wikilawyering: At Talk:Chrysler, Springee argued that a proposed addition had to be rejected because the text had flaws, and would never be allowed to be fixed. Meaning, no RfC could ever support adding any text to Wikipedia because, Springee claims here, the addition could never be edited again.
  • Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy.
  • Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy,
  • Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy:
    • citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware
    • Citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason to delete entire sections of articles because some of the content cites newspapers and magazines!? WP:NOTNEWS deals with creating new articles about news events, not deleting paragraphs describing events related to a topic merely because they cite news sources. Springee knows this, but has repeatedly made up new rules and new interpretations of policy as needed.
  • Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over.
  • Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet.
  • A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch
  • Removing a large addition for a minor error. [80][81][82]

I can't go on; it's too much work for one person. I haven't even gotten to "Mischaracterizing other editors", "Borderlining", "Retribution" and "Playing victim". The number of blockable offenses goes on and on. Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times, and has accused others may times. Often the boomerang went one way or the other. Many of Springee's rivals were themselves violating rules, but what is the common denominator in this years-long record of conflict? The common denominator is stonewalling, bad faith, and gaming the system. Springee has been warned many times, has tried voluntary topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR sanctions, and has had every opportunity to become intimately familiar with what sorts of behavior are not allowed.

This is never going to stop. A topic ban or temporary block are pointless. An indefinite block is necessary to stop this disruption.

If you review Springee's previous AN/I cases, what will follow is his counterattack on me, in the form of a wall of text. This AN/I discussion will grow to thousands of words. Look at each of the past RfCs, and AN/I threads. They grow so large they're unreadable. What is the common denominator in all of them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Several of your diffs have nothing to do with Springee and several of your claims of misconduct have no evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of canvassing. I would not consider this refactoring, but it does appear to putting one's thumb on the scale. I think it is very unlikely that ANI will resolve this. If "Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times,..." is true then I suggest you whittle this down to 10-15 clear, compelling, obvious instances of disruptive editing and request an Arbcom case at WP:RFAR. - MrX 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of canvassed editors had previously expressed strong agreement with Springee's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Predictably, both of you went on to say you supported Springee's interpretation of that policy in this case. You also share Springee's habit of nuking large blocks of content for one flaw, rather than fix it, tag it or removing only part. You don't acknowledge the existence of the WP:PRESERVE policy. Like Springee, you are relentless. Nobody has said you're not independent. The fact is, drawing you into any discussion means an ally for Springee. You proved it by doing exactly what the canvassing policy says not to do when canvassed. Arthur Rubin had the sense to stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Alas - you are so wrong as to make your charge ludicrous here. [83] shows my opinion, which is quite dissimilar from the impression you seek to give about it.

Is the make and model number of the vehicle in each case of special and notable significance to the reader? If it has special significance, more than mere mention in sources, then it may be useful information. If not (that is, the make and model of the vehicle is of no special significance at all, and removal of the make and model would in no way harm readers) then it should not be included. Consider a mass murderer who left a "Brand X" soda can at a murder scene (that is - the brand of soda was noted, but of no significance to the crime or solution of the crime in any material way) would you expect to see a reference to "Brand X" in an article on that person? I suggest this be the actual basis for determination on a case by case basis, rather than setting an "all or none" rule here.

does not seem to show any evidence of being a CANVASSed position at all, and I find your imputation that I nuked material for non-policy reasons to be absurd here. Kindly redact your imputation, as I find such stuff to be quite toxic to collegial editing. Collect (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Collect, here are 3 diffs of you doing so on Chrysler: [84][85][86]. Your deletions also contradicted the letter and the spirit of the recently closed RfC which was decided in favor of keeping the addition. You could have fixed any minor issues, but instead you deleted it all. Over and over. In the thread Talk:Chrysler#Removal of 1979 bailout, another editor said, "Bad delete. Collect, why would you delete this... These are hardly embattled opinions. You even deleted completely innocuous mentions of Simca, Rootes, and Barreiros. Seriously. Mr.choppers". Removing content this way is found under WP:STONEWALL, "Removing a large addition for a minor error". You restored uncited gross inaccuracies, which had been in the article since 2013, and claimed the reason for your revert was because the citations were not quite perfect enough. Talk about bad faith negotiating.

I don't mean to make this about you, but there is overwhelming evidence that Springee chose you well when he canvassed you. He wanted somebody like-minded to help him win his RfC, because he will do anything to win. I could have hand-picked a dozen editors to "ask for advice" *wink* *wink* and those dozen hand-picked editors would proceed to post !votes favorable to me in any RfC. I could hand pick a dozen right now and they would come to this AN/I and post "support". It's easy. That's why canvassing is bad, and the AN/I record shows that Springee has litigated canvassing multiple times. No excuse for not knowing what he was doing.

I don't want to make this about you, but that's the facts. Anybody can read the diffs for themselves and see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. X, I also have to insist that this is never OK. An editor may choose to comment on an article talk page, but that doesn't obligate them to be drawn in, against their will, to a larger debate on a WikiProject RfD, or AN/I or any other protracted debate. We must always respect both the content and the context of an editor's words, and not change them or move them unasked. When I objected, Springee, as always, was deaf to it and reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits like this and this stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- MrX 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Springee, I did. What I see is an article that goes into elaborate detail about the management team and marketing campaigns, but says almost nothing critical of the company or their products. The talk page seems to show you object to any content about recalls [87], which I assume relates to the July edit wars. I'm not sure if this is just an unpleasant content dispute, or editor misconduct, but only Arbcom would be able to unravel it in my opinion. Fyddlestix' comments seem on point.- MrX 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, Thanks for looking into it. At a high level that was a dispute regarding WEIGHT and BALAS. Recalls do have a place in automotive articles but there is a limit. All the major car companies have many recalls each year. At some point we have to say we can't cover them all and that many are not notable (the common vernacular version, not NOTE) in context of companies that have been around for nearly a century. There is an archived Automotive project page that talks about which recalls should be covered with respect to car models but not at the higher level manufacture articles. I would also note that the RfC Dennis referenced only covered quality/reliability material not recalls. Recalls were discussed separately. More importantly, if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then. Instead he is using this as an excuse to attack me with accusations of bad faith now. The issue now is basically a non-issue except for Dennis trying to make a mountain out of his mole hill. In this case the issue is Dennis starting off with an assumption of bad faith and going from there. Please look at this example[[88]]. Dennis's first post in the RfC was mostly an attack on me. How does that help anything? Consider the penalty Dennis is demanding? Indef block? Keep that in mind when reading Dennis's claims. When/if I get time this evening I will try to point by point reply to the accusations. (posted from my phone, please forgive swypos) Springee (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. This is not Springee's first rodeo at ANI, and I've lost count of the number of times he has been brought here (and brought others here) over similar conflicts. Some examples: [89][90][91]. There are a number of 3RR and AE threads that show a history of problematic behavior as well: [92][93][94] Previous long-running conflicts with HughD and Scoobydunk were particularly disruptive, I outlined some of the most problematic behavior in their interactions with HughD here. Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[95]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[96]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not claiming that Dennis is squeaky clean - I don't know if he is or not. But I'm not sure that it matters: conflicts like these are always a two-way street, and this is the third time I've seen you get involved in a prolonged feud like this. In fact, looking at your edit history and your edit count, those three feuds seems to make up the vast majority of your edit history. This is not good. You should have learned long ago that wikipedia is not a battleground, and how to de-escalate rather than prolong these kinds of disagreements. We're here to build an encyclopedia not get embroiled in interminable pissing contests, and people whose primary activity on the wikipedia seems to consist of such contests should not be surprised if/when the community loses patience with them. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my format wrote above. I'm not really sure we have a big conflict here. Yes, I guess I could have just walked away the moment Dennis accused me of bad faith. Then again he could have done the same when he, wrongly, felt I was working on bad faith. Beyond that what do we have here? This isn't some sort of long running feud. I disagreed with an edit and other editors and I started the usual discussion process. It certainly appears that we have exactly that other than the accusations of bad faith from Dennis. When it was clear that we had about 3:3 related to the issue and when Dennis made it clear any action of mine would be seen as bad faith I asked for help and started the RfC. Again I ask, what do you think I did wrong here? (posted from phone, sorry for any swypos) Springee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"...if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then", Springee lied. I did address it then. Anyone can see that. I called you on it repeatedly. You're lying right now in the face if diffs that anyone can see show you are lying. You are "playing victim" when you wail about not assuming good faith. Per AGF: "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I caught you stonewalling and gaming the system once, and warned you. Second time around, I caught you repeating the same stonewalling and gaming the system. I called you on it. You'd have me play the fool.

This is one of your favorite tactics. Every time you get caught with these tricks and schemes, votestacking, canvassing, wikilawyering, you play the AGF card. This is why I don't think a temporary block or a topic ban is sufficient. This is a deeply ingrained pattern of behavior that you couldn't quit if you wanted to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your actions, so I must be a sock! So much for AGF. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Springee: I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[97]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked Arthur Rubin for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[98]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[99]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[100]], [[101]]. Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Springee just wrote 400 words defending his behavior on the grounds that I should have given him the benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, read his actions in a positive light, blah blah blah. Poor Springee. In the exact same edit, just above, literally separated by a single line break, he accused IP 74.70.146.1 of being a sock of one of his old enemies. Of which he seems to have many. Springee, is there any way for you to grasp just how much bad faith is expressed right here in this one edit? It's like some kind of performance art, seeing how far you can flout policy before you get blocked for it. Bravo, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well well well. If our policies mean anything, it's high time for admin action. AGF is not a suicide pact; the central issue is a turd of well-documented: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#IDHT, WP:EW, WP:STONEWALL violations, and there's no reason to WP:IAR (i.e. ignore the policy violations) when the policy violations are in service of a currently successful effort at keeping text/info including this (!) out of the Chrysler article: National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time.! Bravo, User:Dennis Bratland for bringing this here as this is exactly what ANI is for. Concur with 74.70.146.1, User:Fyddlestix, User:MrX and User:Dennis Bratland regarding need for a block, battleground behavior, blatant whitewashing and disruptive editing. Springee claims below, "I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically." The truth is- the complaint was quoted selectively. --166.216.158.165 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Detailed reply

I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically. Please note there are some fundamental issues with this complaint. Dennis is focused on edits and discussions surrounding a current and RfC and one from several months back. Why is he only complaining the old one now? If he is going to complain about that RfC then he should notify the involved editors so they can give their views. We have already seen that Collet doesn't agree with some of Dennis's claims. The recent RfC stems from two recent additions to the Ford F-650 article (Aug 28th [[102]]) and and the Chevy Caprice article (Sept 7th [[103]]). An initial discussion was posted on the F-650 talk page on the 29th after I removed the text noting "The use in a crime isn't notable in an article about the vehicle" [[104]]. The original editor, CuriousMind01, posted a question about the removal on the talk page and I suggested bringing it up on the Automobile Project page which was done on Sept 3rd [[105]]. Dennis was the first to reply and in all honesty I thought we were in agreement [[106]] though I was clearly mistaken [[107]].

At this point Dennis focuses on my use of the word "notable" to remove the text in question [[108]]. I apologize noting I was not referring to the WP:NOTE but just a common use of the word [[109]]. The first accusation of bad faith followed with an accusation of STONEWALLING [[110]]. Note at this point the discussion was somewhat stalled and consensus seemed to be 2:2. At this point I realized (no one else had noticed) that the F-650 article is only about the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar and thus doesn't cover the older 1993 F-700 that was used in the bombing. Thus I argue that in addition to any other issue related to WEIGHT etc the material simply doesn't relate to the F-650 article. I would have thought that would be enough to justify removal. I was wrong... and at that point Dennis really started with the accusations of bad faith [[111]], [[112]]. I see NOTHING in my talk page actions at this point that could be seen as problematic and I feel nothing that would deserve the hostile replies Dennis was adding to the talk page. As of Sept 6th consensus was 3:2 against. On the 7th another editor joined the conversation in support of inclusion and then added very similar content to the Chevy Caprice article. I reverted the addition, Dennis reverted me.

At that this point it was becoming clear that this was something that was not going to be solved through a normal back and forth given the accusations of bad faith Dennis was aiming at me and his insistence that WEIGHT and BALAS really only apply to balancing of opinions, not relative weight given to material within (or not within) an article (example from Sept 5th [[113]]). I ask Arthur and Collet what might be the best approach for this issue since we are now talking about two articles and NPOV wasn't the only policy mentioned hence it might be outside the scope of NPOVN. To that end I started an RFC on Sept 9th. The RFC was posted on the two car pages, at NPOVN, and "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Maths, science, and technology".

I'm sorry that was a long backdrop but I want to make it clear that this was and largely still is a content dispute going through the usual channels.

From the original complaint:

*WP:FORUMSHOP

• • [114] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee}}
  • Starts RfC instead of letting it go

Not clear when it was ever 3:1 against. Additionally, the primary discussion was ALWAYS on the Automobile Project page. It isn't forum shopping to stick with the results of the main discussion, especially since Dennis was aware of that discussion. The RfC wasn't forum shopping either. It came about because we were 3:3.

*Canvassing [115][116]

• • Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process

Yes, I was told to be careful about canvassing. I was careful and made sure my questions were neutral and focused only on how and where to answer the question. Not sure where the bludgeon comment comes from. A keyword search of the link turned up nothing.

*Refactoring others' talk page comments: [117][118][119]

The first was out of frustration but I do think it was deceptive that Dennis didn't make it clear that he was the one making the claim. The other two (the original and the restoration because Dennis refactored my post! [[120]]) are quoting two editors who replied to the RfCs posted at the article page. Note that I pinged the editors, made it clear these were quotes and where they came from.

*Gaming the system

• • Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor.
  • After a back-and-forth [121][122] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month.
    • And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text.
    • At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [123][124][125][126]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose.

Dennis is wrong in claiming the RfC material was never added. The RfC neever covered recalls (discussed separately) and if Dennis felt the material that was added was not sufficient then he or any of the many other editors involvedat the time could have added it. Again, why bring this up months later?Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

**More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [127] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above)

Simply not true. As I said before the primary discussion was always on the project page and at the time of Dennis's claimed "no one agreed with Springee" the actual count was 3:3 [[128]].

**Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins.

The editor who added the Caprice material added it after joining the F-650 discussion (it was 3:2 against inclusion just before he joined). Note no RfC was taking place at this time. Dennis seems to be inventing facts here.

**Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go?

There was no RfC at this time! The RfC was 2 days away. The count was based on the current project page discussion.

**Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy.

Not sure how I would argue against a vague accusation like that. Currently the RfC is about 15:5 against inclusion and many editors have cited the same policies as me.

**Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy,

• • Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy:
    • citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware

This is another bad faith argument on Dennis's part. When I first removed the text from the F-650 article I said it wasn't notable in context of the article. I didn't mean WP:NOTE and said as much when Dennis brought it up. What can I say when an editor tires to accuse me of meaning WP:NOTE (and makes the accusation repeatedly) when I clearly state I didn't mean NOTE and, like many editors, used notable when I should have said weight etc.

**Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Then how can I tell if the claim is legit.

**Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet.

There is no Wiki rule that I'm aware of that says we can't suggest new arguments when previous ones fail to convince.

**A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch

I've addressed this BS before. I think my replies on the project talk page were clear.

I would point out that Dennis seems to have a history of confrontation with editors who disagree with him. Dennis has taken a hostile approach to other users as well [[129]], [[130]], [[131]].

This should be a simple content dispute that was moved to an RfC but for a series of accusations of bad faith starting with Dennis. I'm sure I could have handled things better (not nibbled at the bait a few times) but his telling grossly distorts the events. (Sorry for typos, it's late) Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

* I'm restoring this from the archive. Hopefully we can have a resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, nobody cares. So this will get archived again shortly. 68.193.51.117 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• FYI, altho I agree with your sentiment, by posting to the discussion you delayed its archiving by a day. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would really like a response. Today Springee goes on playing his games, pretending he doesn't know that Wikipedia is not a Democracy and we determine outcomes by Consensus, not voting. He declares disputes "over" at will, whenever he feels like it's to his advantage. At Talk:Ford F-650, things weren't going his way, so he jumped over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and started an RfC to see if he could get a different outcome. Now he claims the outcome is decided and he wonders why anyone would want his RfC to be formally closed? Why start a formal RfC if you don't want it to be formally closed? It's more of the same gaming the system. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Now, a sudden interest in the 2014 Oso mudslide! Who knew Springee edited articles about disasters in small towns in the state of Washington? Obviously, Springee is tracking my edits and hounding me now. See WP:HOUND "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ". Springee has history of tracking others' edit history in order to harass them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Googly Drive, WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:NOTHERE states Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned. and I have seen many admins block editors who they think are not here to build an encyclopedia.

User:Googly Drive's edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They came to surface during a very hotly contested AFD and their very first edit was to canvass like-minded editors to vote in an AFD. Their second edit was on LanguageXpert SPI displaying the knowledge about SPIs and how they knew the behavior of previous socks of LX. Their third edit was on TP of Human3015 telling him that LX was impersonating his style which shows that they are very much familiar with Human3015's editing style. All of their edits show that they are number 1 not a new user and number 2 came with an agenda to disrupt that AFD process. I am requesting a block for this user as it seems they are not here to make any productive contributions but rather their existence on Wikipedia will create more disruption than productive contribution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheriff himself is not here to build an encyclopaedia. He wants the whole world to agree with his original research. If Sheriff will say "The Earth is flat", then he wants others to say "yes". Googly Drive (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a valid defense. Kleuske (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• FYI to all ye who wonder: User:Googly Drive was renamed to Harpoon Trigger (talk · contribs). -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• • • @Bbb23:... you and Mike V doing a double act?! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The original master is stale because last proper run on it was done in March, I could have reported him under that but honestly there was no evidence except the user knew too much and was not new and the habit of renaming users which he just gave away an hour ago. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone who makes pro-India edits is a sock. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass creation of articles

• Muhd FUad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Muhd FUad has created a large number of articles in quick succession, most of which are of the form Foo is a Malaysian badminton player, and a single source, the same website in every case (a results database, so not a RS to establish notability). Most of the articles have an infobox, which includes a ranking, and these are often so high that it's unlikely the subject would ever pass notability. A number have been tagged for deletion. Some don't even have the sub-stub text, just an infobox and the website. I think a mass delete is a good start here. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree; this seems to be a good example. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have gone through and deleted most of the BLPPRODs/PRODs/CSDs. Working on a clean-up now ... Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted all the ones that were infobox only, or "X is a badminton player" without any other claim of notability - a total of 53. All the rest (a dozen or so) have at least some claim to notability and/or sources, although some if not all are probably candidates for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I prodded all of them, told the user that they'd have some time to fix the ones that might pass notability, and I also warned them that taking the Prods off without fixing the problems would be a bad idea. They didn't listen, removed the prods and fixed almost nothing. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Other edits like this are slightly odd. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly... that's just weird. This guy saved a few of his articles. Why would he do that?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Initially, Muhd FUad wasn't writing article text at all, posting just an infobox. There wasn't even an indication that the three-digits rankings of these players were in badminton. Now someone else is adding actual article text, and I'm measuring what's being said against WP:NBADMINTON. At least a few of these people may be notable under those criteria. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait...s/he blanked someone else's talk page? That's a WP:TPO violation (albeit inadvertent). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of blanking talk pages in this discussion. Did you mean to ask this somewhere else? Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

S/He is back making more articles. See Soong Joo Ven. As to the mention of blanking someone else talk page, it is above where Muffled said: "Other edits like this are slightly odd. ". However, I'm willing to AGF and guess that edit was probably a mistake.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

After a couple of rounds of restoring maintenance and BLPPROD tags removed by this editor and leaving warnings on his talk page, I've filed a report at WP:AIV. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours for disruptive editing, in a last-ditch attempt to get his attention. If he makes no attempt to understand what he did wrong, next block should be indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified editor making unsourced changes

I am not well versed enough in the U.S. census to know if this unnamed editor is a vandal or is actually contributing something to the encyclopedia. I hope somebody can check out these changes. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of those edits are being reverted. It would help if the IP provided some sources for the changes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jurre27 and Netherlands national football team

This user has been editing the article Netherlands national football team for a few years, and while his edits are helpful (updating the squad is all he does), they also consistently include wrong birthdays for players (see here for example: the birthdays of Jeroen Zoet, Michel Vorm and Karim Rekik are wrong. All of his contributions are similar). I've tried many times to reach out to him on his talk page, but he ignores anything posted there and keeps introducing the same errors to the article.

Maybe I should have posted here sooner, but I do believe he's editing with good intentions. Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to listen, which means the article always has to be fixed after his edits. So yeah, posting here because I'm not sure what else to do. Kinetic37 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He has now also reverted my edit in which I fixed this (That IP is his). Kinetic37 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a short block will help him get the message? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Filter? Rangeblock? Synthesizer patch trivia LTA case from New York

There's a person using multiple IPs from New York who adds unreferenced trivial stuff to music articles. The most recognizable pattern is like this one in which a song article gets something like the following text clumsily inserted into the first sentence:

• ...(where the [model of synthesizer] patch/sound was/were heard)...

Here are some examples:

• 3 Oct 2600:1017:B829:DB9A:602B:3727:3BD2:2ADB (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27 Sept 2600:1017:B81C:911D:A591:6D14:580A:3E3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Sept 2600:1017:B80C:8923:3931:FD2A:6643:B8AA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1017:B802:AECC:7180:7036:B70D:8F0C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1000:B10B:9C5:384B:2589:1406:1C07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 July 2600:1017:B82C:A4C4:2453:58A4:DD3E:A3E6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 July 2600:1017:B818:FC2:7452:75E3:151E:7E75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 17 July 2600:1001:B116:9629:DD5:5BD9:18FD:2C41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 2600:1001:B128:4F85:DDCF:A0E6:3C6C:4C44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 June 2600:1017:B40A:E3AB:3D69:CC5C:6589:1B2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25 June 2600:1017:B81A:7B1D:1CC1:4BC0:E2BD:409F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 June 2600:1017:B814:6C8C:85F2:2AF:B89F:D435 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10 June 2600:1017:B809:3743:9DA3:6F49:B45D:B193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 22 May 2600:1017:B808:590F:8C6A:ABD7:252C:FA9E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 May 2600:1017:B40A:79F6:F51A:9F70:F038:5217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 April – 1 May 2600:1017:B81A:4F01:1977:B827:7A34:6E12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 20 April 2600:1017:B80B:5A78:E817:36EB:13FD:31B6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 March 2600:1017:B80F:61EF:2582:6E38:CB38:42E0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 13 March 70.214.107.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 March 2600:1017:B820:33DD:F095:AED6:C1A7:D8D6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 26 February 2600:1017:B42C:452:E03B:F767:B25B:5695 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 February 2600:1017:B81A:597C:F81E:2DFF:EAE0:334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–28 January 70.199.102.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 January 2600:1017:B822:9C5C:E85B:E505:981B:C8B9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 January 2600:1017:B817:3A18:219E:798A:6F87:558B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 7–9 January 70.214.96.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 December 2015 2600:1017:B806:BC85:D991:4755:1262:82D7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 October 2600:1017:B818:4D25:44A:DF1:5914:41F4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Some of these IPs have been blocked for this disruption, for instance a few weeks ago on 1 September and on 8 September, both blocked by Widr. If this disruptive person stuck around for more than a few days on any IP address I would try to reason with him or her, but that hasn't happened. So to stop the disruption, do we put a filter together to stop the clumsy insertions of trivia? Or do we set a rangeblock in place on the most frequently used group, 2600:1017:B...? Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and use of profanity by user Jytdog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I'm writing to express concern over the response of editor Jytdog in regards to edits I made on the page Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell. Editor Jytdog referred to my edits as “an orgy of laziness”, “a f***ing mess” (with the actual word), and “shot full of invalid claims”. I hope that in posting to the ANI, this issue can be properly addressed.

In response to the claims made by Jytdog: I believe that the “aftermath of laziness” refers to my inclusion of references as links to Pubmed. These linked to the appropriate research article, but did not include author name, title, etc directly in the Wikipedia entry. If there is a systematic way to format and include references in this style, I would be happy to know and incorporate this.

The “shot full of invalid claims” was part of a larger comment: "way, way too many primary sources and claims of "in X year Y lab was the first to do Z" sourced to Y's paper. shot full of invalid claims. that paper cannot be used as the source that it was first. need third party to say that”. Jytdog’s claim of invalidity is inaccurate and unfounded. The use of primary references does not equate to invalidity. Furthermore, in my edit [132], I included two review articles (references 11 and 12) to corroborate the primary sources (references 13-17; the information from reference 18 had been put there by another user). However, in an effort to address this, Jytdog introduced an inaccuracy that would be upsetting to the authors involved in the studies. Such issues with references would be better handled through discussion of content, rather than deletion or use of vulgar language.

Moving forward, I ask that the use of profanity and incivility by user Jytdog is dealt with appropriately by the community. Thank you,

CellbioPhD (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In response to the aversion on the use of primary literature sources, I believe that including this information is helpful to scientists and the public looking to understand the development of a field. As a scientist, I would rather see direct references to publications in an area (e.g. the paper that discovered gene X) than a link to a review article (although knowing the primary source has been corroborated is helpful). In a new field (like iPSCs), it takes time for review articles to be published. It makes more sense to post information as it becomes available from primary sources, then to include corroborating secondary sources as they become available, and to discuss content as needed. This may be different from medical articles where patients may be looking to base treatment options on what they read from Wikipedia, and use of careless citation can be harmful. As someone with experience in iPSCs, I would like to continue citing primary sources in addition to relevant review articles, and hope that questions of inaccuracy can be resolved through amicable discussion within the community.

Relevant links: Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jytdog History of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell&action=history Relevant diff: [133]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CellbioPhD (talk • contribs)

I notice you made no attempts to contact Jytdog about this issue. You didn't even notify him that you opened this thread, though maybe you are busy doing that right now, I hope. ANI is where you go when an issue cannot be resolved by discussion with the users involved - it's not where you run to tattle on someone for using bad words, or to complain that someone disagreed with you. Regarding the disagreement over references, ANI doesn't care. Content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.